Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The difficulty, Peter, is you are in the well-known trap of classical liberalism vs social liberalism. To preserve the greatest amount of flexibility for the one or few the governing authority makes the fewest rules possible (aka, smallest government) rather than pursue the social liberalism approach of the rules all must obey for the greatest efficiency. The outcome is given the fewest rules the most effective group takes over making the rules. On a pirate ship (where pure democracy is the ideal), the secret crew takes over once the rest of the crew has obtained the prize. It's inevitable: an elite takes the spoils. This isn't unnatural. It is exactly what one can illustrate in the majority of civilizations where common resources have to be managed and distributed by cooperative consent. See the Mayans. Technically, what is now current is right. Unless XML is kept free of application semantics then the semantics chosen govern all applications that use XML. In practice, the difference is moot. XHTML rules the roost until HTML5 does away with XHTML and thus, XML. And then someone will knock off HTML5. As long as the web itself IS an application (which in ISO layer architecture, it is), whoever governs the web sets those rules. This is not TimBL, the W3C or any of the others you mention but the mostly anonymous browser designers at a handful of companies and their moneyed customers. The very people you are asking to vote have the least interest in making changes and really, not much power to make changes that large. They can tinker but that's about it. Your scenario between Roy and Tim is ironic because the W3C and its membership have organized it to prevent exactly that scenario from occurring. Spend time on the Web Architecture Working Group list. An organization that avowed to perform in Internet Time discovered that Internet Time is a myth. It enabled them to reduce ISO influence and thus obtain some political objectives, but once an application is fielded in the large, it becomes a honeyed treacle through which any fast march is considerably reduced in speed. The W3C succumbed to the very forces of market treacle it said it could overcome. These aren't hurt feelings. This is market reality. The likely way this changes is for one of the current big companies to discover a not too risky technical change that enables them to take market share. In game theory, it is a stag hunt and they have to decide to chase a rabbit because the short term rewards outweigh the immediate or long term advantages of continuing to cooperate. The proprietary web clients used by publishers have been attempting this but so far enjoy only limited success. The way they would succeed would be to replace the web itself (build and field a different browser that doesn't use HTTP even if it is technically a REST model) and that has a very small likelihood of succeeding. len -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Welch [mailto:andrew.j.welch@g...] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 8:47 AM To: Rushforth, Peter Cc: liam@w...; David Carlisle; Len Bullard; xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basic principles of MicroXML" > I believe that one of the problems with XML 1.0 is the lack of support for the web, so this will eventually kill any child if it's not addressed. XML has 'support for the web' in the form of XHTML, or any other specific dialect. There is nothing that needs to be added to XML in general. No one feeds their data bearing xml straight to the browser, it always needs some processing before getting displayed. The need for a simplified XML didn't come from the web, it came from fellow developers struggling and getting annoyed with parsing XML config files, or trying to write out some XML from a set of fields, or trying to insert some nodes into some XML. Nothing Peter, nothing.. to do with linking. :) -- Andrew Welch http://andrewjwelch.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
