xml-dev - RE: power uses of XML vs. simple uses of XML

[James Robertson <jamesr@steptwo.com.au>]

At 03:54 10/07/2000, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

>Sometimes, the theorists and adventurers have to
>go ahead and create what they think will work cognizant
>of the fact that by the time an imminent well-funded requirement
>emerges, it may be years later and there will be different
>names on the specifications.  That is a hard and bitter
>pill, but it is the case.   NASA has been working on
>ion engines since the mid sixties.  Only in the
>90s did we finally see a working engine and no one
>who worked on that team was an inventor of the technology,
>the concepts, just the implementations.

Len,

I fully support the concept of "pure research". Absolutely
invaluable, if we are to meet future, unknown, requirements.

But that is not what we are doing here.

We are creating _standards_.

They do not innovate, they set in stone the best concepts
that have been invented so far, so everyone can
talk the same language.

But, to my mind, we are now well into uncharted
territory. Why then are we still creating standards?

J



-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution

http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@steptwo.com.au


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************