[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:29:28 -0400
At 02:14 PM 8/2/00 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>The answer is in response to slamming both
>groves and arch forms without taking time to
>understand either. In that case, the needs
>don't matter; the source matters. NIH.
I think you're making some assumptions here about the amount of time and
research that has been invested by 'outsiders' in investigating both groves
and architectural forms. Those assumptions may not hold up under scrutiny.
A lot of folks on this list (myself included) have spent more time than
we'd like boning up on these very topics, and not received a whole lot of
return on our investments. (It's definitely helped me follow XML-Dev,
though.)
Both specs inform my work, but I don't regard either of them as a natural
or appropriate fit to XML.
It's not that we don't appreciate the work done by those who have come
before, it's that we don't always find that work appropriate to the needs
we have at present.
It's NAH - Not Appropriate Here - not just NIH.
Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
