Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Lee posed a good question in asking why and what. Bens response was convincing to me, as part of the answer. XML on the web[Bens definition]. The other aspect we can address is the grumbles we've heard on this list over the last few years. Succinctly, what aspects of the XML stack do we need to keep and do they belong within SXML/XML 2.0? James put the list at XML Namespaces, xml:id, xml:base and XML Infoset. Would you add more? Drop some of these? Which parts of XML 1.0 are redundant/legacy/hard to implement|explain? What could be culled to make a smarter spec before we build on it. regards DaveP On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:15:12 -0800 Ben Trafford <ben@p...> wrote: > When we talk about XML on the Web, we're talking about going from this > process: > > Develop schema -> Write XML document -> Test XML document with native > delivery mechanism and obscure tools -> Write transformation -> Test > transformation -> Deliver transformation to ubiquitous environment > > to > > Develop schema and stylesheet -> Write XML document -> Test documents > with well understood and supported tools -> Deliver to ubiquitous > environment > > Doesn't seem like much of a difference, to a developer's eyes. To a > process geek like myself, I look at that and think, "Okay, so, I've > cut out $100k off my licensing budget for the obscure tools. I've cut > 20% off my development and delivery time. I don't need to hire for > obscure skill sets like XSLT just to leverage the power of XML." > > And then I think "$$$$$$! WOOHOO!" > > -That's- why we need an XML that is compatible with existing web > technologies. Not because it's some ivory tower dream of wonderful > unicorns dancing in rainbows, but because it will save people a lot of > money. > --->Ben -- regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
