I concur with John Hanna. I have been working with SGML/XML for well
over a decade now, and it is a mistake to follow the research end of
emerging standards for your own research (unless, as in our case, you
are a part of the research on such emerging technologies). You simply
accomplish what these technologies set out to eliminate... if you make
the wrong choices your data becomes less accessible or expensive to
migrate. Wait till standards are standards and then make sure people are
using them (being a standard is no guarantee of usage). Once they become
used, you are relatively assured of a soft landing. Don't run till you
can walk. Don't fly without a parachute.
Michael Fischer
On Tuesday, October 2, 2001, at 02:45 PM, John Hanna wrote:
> On Monday, October 01, 2001 14:23 Alan Stockdale wrote
> Subject: Re: QDML/QDDL?
> ...
>> One other thought: I'm not an XML expert but aren't DTD's old hat?
>> Aren't we really talking about XML Schemas? I quote from a recent
>> W3 document (See: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/): "XML
>> Schema: Structures specifies the XML Schema definition language,
>> which offers facilities for describing the structure and constraining
>> the contents of XML 1.0 documents, including those which exploit
>> the XML Namespace facility. The schema language, which
>> is itself represented in XML 1.0 and uses namespaces, substantially
>> reconstructs and considerably extends the capabilities found in XML
>> 1.0 document type definitions (DTDs)."
>
> Use of emerging capabilities such as XML Schemas and Namespaces could
> provide critical features such as making the standard more adaptable and
> extensible (thereby avoiding the need to codify all details for all
> users) while also providing templates and other scaffolding for users.
>
> DDI may be heading there (see quoted material below).
>
> Regards,
> John Hanna
>
> <deleted/>
|