Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by ziggy (25) on 2003.01.03 11:48 (#15709) Journal
    Remember that the IQ for a group (or a meeting) is defined as the average IQ of the participants divided by the number of participants. Lo and behold, there's a mathematical explanation why XML Schema is so bad and other specs (like XML 1.0 and XSLT) are so much better.

    The best thing that the W3C can do is recognize that James Clark writes excellent software and excellent specs. XSLT 1.0 has a few wrinkles, but it works and it works well because (1) James has a lot of experience in the field and (2) wrote an implementation concurrent with the specification. Neither can be said for the WXS WG.

    Now, if someone else could follow that model (instead of the W3C's standard bureaucratic and bloated method of spec writing), then perhaps big parts of the XML foundation (like Schemata) might be close to usable.

    • I very much agree overall except for the last paragraph. As a member in a WG (SVG), I can't say that I find the process to be bureacratic or bloated. On the contrary, it's rather open and creative. I think that depends a lot on a WG's internal politics, as well as on external pressure to get something. No one believed in XPath, XSLT, SVG, etc. but people had been expecting WXS for ages and wanted everything in it.

      In an evil way, I can't wait to see what WSX 2.0 will look like <g>


      -- Robin Berjon []

      • The W3C is a big place, and some WGs are bound to be better than others. With my recent experiences with WXS 1.0, and the drafts for XQuery 1.0/XSLT 2.0/XPath 2.0, I have a big case of The Fear when it comes to the W3C process. The process that gave us WXS 1.0, XQuery et. al. is substantially divorced from the James Clark model: brilliant people implementing and specifying and using concurrently. That has two major drawbacks: vocabulary design that's exceedingly vague and hard to use/read, and a spec tha