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

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

You are right, Simon, but this is a dangerous 
position for the W3C to take.  What it is 
incubating is lack of clarity.  This lack of 
clarity about what can and cannot, should 
and should not be attempted with its technology 
and specifications results in requests for 
proposals for systems that are dangerous 
to field.  It results in expectations that 
cannot be met by reasonable implementors 
and reasonable effort.  It results in a 
caveat emptor market that favors and 
in fact, encourages misrepresentation 
of product capability.  This historical 
trend of trying to make a big splash 
with 20% of the necessary features 
while simultaneously disregarding prior 
work and results, or worse, dismissing 
it as irrelevant or obsolete will eventually 
result in catastrophic system failures.

Risk and reliability.  Risk and reliability.
Internet time is the Jethro Bodine approach 
to fixing your brakes: "I did Ma, that's why 
we ain't got none."

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]

If we all treated the W3C's technology as experimental, their moves might
not be seen as problematic.  Unfortunately, lots of people don't, and there
are plenty of businesses betting their fortune on XML 1.0 and its
supporting standards.

***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************