Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: AndrewWatt2000@aol.com
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:01:57 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 25/09/00 18:16:46 GMT Daylight Time,
> This one has my vote:
> it's from this months Business 2.0. And it's written by a professor of
> new media at hunter college in NY. Which shows that even professors
> sometimes don't do their homework. I guess this guy thought he was so
> smart, he didn't need to be bothered with the facts.
> I am putting together a "Stupid XML Article" section on my website in
> response to this garbage masquerading as press. Especially after the AP
> wire scare last summer (the whole "Europe votes no on XML" thing),
> something has to be done.
> Please forward your favorite (most hated?) stupid XML article to me
> privately if anyone wants to participate. Anonymously or otherwise.
I think there are many positive points in the article which so roused your
A title like, "XML: No Magic Problem Solver" is a great start for an article
I think he raises some important issues which merit further discussion.
The more I learn about XML the more I see it as being a little like those
Russian dolls which tourists buy. There are multiple layers of complexity and
things which may appear stupid when viewed on one layer seem intricate and
intriguing issues when viewed on another.
What is "fact" with XML is often much more a matter of interpretation than
may at first seem to be the case.
Yes, there are some pretty bad XML articles around. However, I don't really
think Clay Shirky's is one of them.