Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
There is a problem of trying to shoehorn all of the systems research out there into one system. We do have coupling problems that lead to incoherence in multi-vendor and open systems acquisitions. One has to look at use cases, determine criticality, and choose a system that meets the requirements. Picking XML is easy. Choosing among the overlapping application languages is harder. That is a buy oriented problem. The decision of which language to implement is made harder by the overlaps in the core specifications and the hidden assumptions, the most famous being, what does a namespace URI point to if anything? Specs churn, then the tools churn, and we never close on a working model. We stay in experimental mode and the results are hard to come by. For that reason, we have a virtual one-browser system, and a monopoly that while criticized widely, is doing a credible and necessary job. len -----Original Message----- From: Ann Navarro [mailto:ann@w...] >From: <mailto:tnutman@s...>Tim Nutman > >How many research, standards bodies, commercial and home "users" were >involved >in the creation of the HTML specifications? How does that number compare >to today >and the number of those involved in the creation of XML and XML-"thingy" >specifications >and technologies. Apples and oranges. HTML was a single, non-extensible (at least by definition) document. XML by design is a framework for other development efforts. There should be no surprise that more people are involved in creating XML specs -- that's what they're supposed to do.
|
