• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:38:06 -0400 (EDT)

Simon St.Laurent writes:

 > >The only so-called XML-related W3C specs my customers have used so far
 > >in real production systems (as far as I remember) are XML itself,
 > >Namespaces, RDF (really!), XSLT, and XPointer (only through XSLT,
 > >though).  I've heard of others using the DOM, though DOM
 > >implementations seem to run into trouble in high-demand environments.
 > >In all cases, the customers used each W3C spec because (a) it solved a
 > >real problem that they would otherwise have had to invent a new
 > >solution for, and (b) there was available software support.
 > 
 > I'm with David on the reality check, though I see more XHTML (mostly for
 > the hell of it) and DOM use.  I don't see much XPointer - just XPath.  And
 > yes, I do see some 'real' RDF work out there.

Yes, I meant "XPath" too.  Damn all those specs!  Good thing we don't
actually have to learn most of them.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

• References:
  • Re: The failure to communicate XML - and its costs to e-business
    • From: Richard Lanyon <rgl@d...>
  • Re: The failure to communicate XML - and its costs to e-business
    • From: Matt Sergeant <matt@s...>
  • Re: The failure to communicate XML - and its costs to e-business
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Deprecating XSLT templates
• Next by Date: Less Stupid XML
• Previous by thread: Re: The failure to communicate XML - and its costs to e-business
• Next by thread: RE: The failure to communicate XML - and its costs to e-business
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread