• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• From: "John Evdemon" <jevdemon@a...>
• Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 17:45:17 -0400
• In-reply-to: <1VDCGETQXVE92ZGFHGQPLLJ83WTAY.3ceabc8e@MChamp>
• Priority: normal
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0205211521280.29971-100000@e...>

On 21 May 2002 at 17:30, Mike Champion wrote:

> Would anyone seriously argue that XML
> would be taken more seriously if RELAX NG and other challenges to
> the orthodoxy just went away?  

Bits like RNG provide the insights and clarity needed to understand 
the complexity of the orthodoxy.

> I suspect that the best way forward is
> to define what it is that we all agree works, refactor the specs
> to put all this at the core, experiment with various ways to built
> on top of the core, but freely admit that we're exploring 
> multiple ideas about schemas, query languages, web services architectures,
> etc. and the *real* standards for these aren't baked yet.

Sounds interesting, but XML 1.0 is (imho) not among the TR's that 
need refactoring.

• References:
  • RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN:RESTTutorial)
    • From: Betty Harvey <harvey@e...>
  • Re: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN:RESTTutorial)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Next by Date: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Previous by thread: Re: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Next by thread: Re: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN:RESTTutorial)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread