Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:16:27 -0500
Umm... such a web site would be a fine
service because then people writing and publishing
these would know we are paying attention. But be
sure what you put there is really off, because otherwise,
same problem amplified. (The dicey problem with hypermedia
is dealing with the amplification effect of feeeeeeeedback.)
The article you cite here is mostly right
(and it is scary how much the author's photo looks like
Steve Newcomb...). XML is overhyped and that
is how we get the dumb and dumber articles.
Fact is, XML doesn't care too much about the
implementation wars, the implementation strategies,
etc. There isn't an XMLWay precisely. XML Doesn't Care.
We care. And that is the right way.
What he says about XML front-loading the pain
is exactly right. What he says about interoperability
being a business isssue is precisely right although
he overemphasizes that as a conspiracy where a good
CS pro knows it is the server side business objects
that have to accept the data and do something smart
with them (a workflow layer on the other side). These
are the benefits of lexically unified
systems with commodity transport protocols.
It isn't magic. It is consensus on a format
for making formats that doesn't give a rats
behind about the politics of platforms. It is
a way to negotiate these into a more precise
layer of concern: loose shoes, loose clothes,
loose coupling, laserRazor focus on a process.
That middle bit is hard.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Lisa Rein [mailto:email@example.com]
This one has my vote: