• From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
• To: Michael Fuller <MICHAEL.S.FULLER@s...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:47:23 -0500

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:14:22 +1100, Michael Fuller wrote:
> More seriously, XML jumped the shark when the Schemas
> spec. came along.  Things were pretty good until then...

:-)

I'm increasingly of the opinion that XML "jumped the shark" with the 
XML Namespaces specification.

This is in part because I've had to try to explain it to people who 
don't care about XML, and just want to be able to do something with it, 
quickly.  I understand it ... I think, although it turns out that there 
are parts of it that leave me shaking my head (especially namespace 
handling in XPath 2.0).

We *need* the ability to mix vocabularies and disambiguate.  Namespaces 
in XML is a horrendously painful way of doing it.

I don't mind W3C XML Schema Part 1, although I like RNG better.  I 
think Part 2 is a problem.  But I also think that namespaces are 
complicating schema, as well.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war for the lead role in a cage?
                -- Pink Floyd

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>

• References:
  • James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Michael Fuller <MICHAEL.S.FULLER@s...>