Re: The cost of Blueberry

RESPONSE:
for point number 1 the costs are likely to be pased on to those who buy
books on xml or take classes on xml.

if we worry about point number 2 excessively than we should never have a
version="2.0", we have to already bear the cost of learning and using more
than one XML flavor, if we consider all these little XML-compliant languages
as being flavors.

point number 3 relates to quote number 2, I think considering all the
various "flavors"(taking as above flavors to mean an XML-compliant language
such as SMIL, XHTML, XSL-T, XSL-FO, SVG, and a couple other fun little
things.) of XML sanctified by the WG over the past couple years, or nearing
sanctification, that the last thing they fear is feature creep.

let us suppose a scenario with blueberry as being in  2.0, then I suppose
that XSL-T 2.0 should also have blueberry.
If we had a 2.0 processor, shouldn't we be able to write stylesheets that
update our XML 1.0 to 2.0, perhaps there might be extensions to XSL-T 2.0 to
make such a conversion simpler. This is all supposing of course that we're
dealing with the new Unicode and not Nel. Also supposing that XSL-T 2.0 will
have more useful stuff like regular expressions (speaking of which Jeni
Tennison announced a new regular expressions extension at
http://www.exslt.org/regexp/index.html) The question then should be how
often are we going to need to make the conversion. Hopefully not often. Also
clever people will hopefully produce generic stylesheets and programs to
ease the conversion.

Anyway I'm for Blueberry, and if the only way to get the better Unicode
support is to accept Nel as well(cause of building a wide enough
constituency for the change) then I'm for both.


the message heretofore, arranged in points and quotes:

<point number="1">  There are many other costs, imposed on those who write
XML parsers, teach
XML, write and publish books on XML, and so on.</point>

<point number="2"> Even some future XML users will have to bear the cost of
learning and using
more than one XML flavor.</point>



<quote number="1">  Other possible
 changes that could improve XML should be considered, and some of them
included in the new version.</quote>

<quote number="2"> The Core WG fears this would be a rathole we'd never
escape from.</quote>


<point number="3">I don't know if you can clarify that any further. It's
difficult to know if
the Core WG fears any extensive change to XML, the impact of extensive
changes in XML acceptance, feature creep, or the probably tortuous and
unsavory process to decide what changes to make.</point>

<point number="4">I still believe the next XML version should be way better
than 1.0, and
offer real gains to defray the costs that any new XML version will
inevitably impose on many people, including all XML 1.0 users. </point>

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2001 04:45:46 UTC