- From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
- To: "'Kurt Cagle'" <kurt.cagle@g...>, "'Michael Kay'" <mike@s...>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:30:07 -0500
Those technologies don’t get
traction I think because for most common practice uses of XML they aren’t
that useful. Most useful related office data is stored
relationally.
As Tim
Bray observes, XML thrives as bits on the wires.
As a representation most programmers can schlep in and out of RAM as
documents, it’s ok. Most common uses can use microformats for the
longer lived semantically loaded bits because microformats track the average
information density of tables. Wise URI management does the
rest. If you need a doc of links, you usually have a table of
contents or the reverse index which is fine because those are where some of the
ideas in XPointer and XLInk originate as well as glosses/annotations.
Very complex abstractions of semantically
loaded data can be fascinating to think about, but what practical desktop uses
are made of them? I’m not saying they don’t exist, but where
they exist in the information ecosystem, what other systems are their dependent
neighbors?
Humans read the stuff.
Documents work. As a result, the most frequent user of the system
doesn’t use XPointer or XLink. They don’t care.
No care: no market.
|
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|