W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org > June 2013

RE: document node attributes

From: Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:02:14 +0000
To: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>, "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>
CC: "public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org" <public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1CD55F04538DEA4F85F3ADF7745464AF24A11619@S-BSC-MBX1.nrn.nrcan.gc.ca>

> I suggest your answers illuminate the fundamental difference 
> of opinion you and I have of "What Is XML"
> While I do recall (but cant find it now) that an early 
> tagline for XML was "For the Web", I argue that is no longer the case.

> That XML has surpassed the web in so many ways that adding 
> things to the core of XML specifically for the Web is a 
> detriment to core XML.

How could increased use of XML on the web be a detriment to XML?

> Does the message that a temperature controller in a car send 
> to the engine controller need hyperlinking ?

Does the temperature controller of a car use DTDs, entities, xml:base, xml:id, xml:space 
and the other stuff that is in XML Core?  If a tree  falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
IOW if a feature of XML not used by that temperature controller, does it matter?  
This particular changes suggested are backwards compatible, as I see it.  If
allowing @xml:anything in a document was going to be a problem for XML, it would
long ago have been 'blocked', I think.  And the suggestion of change shouldn't engender
anger on the part of technologists because change is proposed to it,
since (at least) the intent of the change is for the good of XML.
It should IMHO engender honest open reflection on the issue.

> XML is used in so many non-web places that I 
> would *guess* that the amount of non-web use of XML is 
> atleast 1millionx more than web oriented  XML, but again that 
> is a guess and impossible to validate.

As you say, everything here is a guess.  I recall someone did a census
of XML on the web a while back, and the numbers were not high.
But I don`t dispute it.  My aim is to change that.

> But I can state with high confidence the web is only a small 
> part of what XML is for.  

I am going by (my interpretation) of the statement that
the self-proclaimed number 1 goal of XML is to be successful on the Internet.
And if the number one communication system on the internet receives
lacklustre support from XML, that is a problem IMHO.

> This my main objection to insisting 
> that hypermedia does not belong in the xml:* namespace.  My 
> other objection is practical.  I have complete confidence the 
> XML WG views the issue the same way - they have stated it on 
> multiple occasions, so for practical reasons I am not 
> thrilled to be working on a project that is doomed from the start.

The XML WG is composed of
people, who being human like you and me, make mistakes, and can learn, and have the ability
to change their minds.  As I mentioned the xml: namespace is
not protected, so it will be possible to experiment with it,
without affecting the core in any way.  As I mentioned, I think a parser could
offer some default behaviour for href and src.  This support
would be useful for applications, I think.  I am open to changing
my mind, but perhaps you could offer some concrete reasons
such support for hyperlinks would *not* be useful to web applications,
or in fact would be a "detriment" to XML.

> Given that, and given your arguments are 100% based on XML 
> for use on the Web ... I suggest
> Maybe a possible road to "success" of hypermedia is defining 
> a "Profile" for XML designed for the web. 
> Much like MicroXML which is designed as a subset of XML 
> intended for simpler applications, one could imagine a 
> simpler concept designed for "XML On the web"
> Then we are free to write our own rules about what is part of 
> the core spec or not

The next best thing would be to have a media type that is a 
strict profile of XML which declares the hypermedia attributes in
its core, with no namespace on them. I thought it might have been
possible with MicroXML, but that group was not amenable to 
supporting the web either.  I would welcome a change to that

Unfortunately application/xml is ubiquitous, and gaining traction 
for another xml based media type will be a slog in 2013 and beyond.
It would be simpler (IMHO) to add backwards-compatible web support 
to it.  But I've heard off-list from others that they support the
path of creating another media type profile of XML, so if that 
helps this group gain traction, I would be willing go that way.  

Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 16:02:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:06 UTC