Big Picture of XML or Diagram of a Big Ball of Goo?
Which Are The Core XML Technologies That Matter?. I stumbled on the The Big Picture of the XML Family of Specifications which lists a large number of technologies that are related to XML in one way shape or form. It seems some people take a look at the diagram and it gives them the impression that XML is too complex after all, just look at all those specs. An interesting fall out of this has been that some fellow B0rg have posted their opinions on what they consider the core of XML. [Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life]
You know, this Big Picture is mostly fabulous. It's a great reference (perhaps a potential T-Shirt?), but it really DOES look a lot more complex that XML feels. On the downside, while this giant document may be a fairly complete list of specs, when you look at it from a Tuftetian point of view, it doesn't make any useful qualitative judgements that we can infer via position. If you apply Don's "kernel of XML" thoughts to a diagram like this, it would need to take into consideration the size and position of the boxes in perhaps a family tree, or perhaps a modified Venn Diagram. It'd be nice if the a new diagram took into consideration time and dependancy, with sizes derived from relative importance (based on dependance).
Anyway, whether XML is complex, or not complex, or more complex than COM ever was, I care not. XML just naturally feels right to me. (Remember to linger across the ee's in feels with the appropriate emphasis :) Complexity doesn't always imply level of difficulty or demand that one impugn.
Scott Hanselman is a former professor, former Chief Architect in finance, now speaker, consultant, father, diabetic, and Microsoft employee. He is a failed stand-up comic, a cornrower, and a book author.
Comments are closed.