xml-dev - RE: It is Pretty Dumb (Was RE: Not so stupid (was re: More StupidXMLArti

[Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>]

I like David's comment about "Our fault, not his".  That's always the way it
is.  I didn't take the mention to be hypersensitive, alarmist, or whatever.
This industry is moving faster than ever, the web amplifies things right or
wrong, and it's hard for many IT professionals to keep up, let alone
journalists.  If we feel we've got a good handle on what the real story is,
we should help those who report understand.  Journalists really are trying
to do the right thing (and not always trying to get attention through
hyped-up declarations).  Most journalists, and especially Dvorak, are smart
enough to take anything we say with a grain of salt.  But if we never even
talk to them, it's at least partially our fault if they don't mix our POV
in.  When silly articles get out, there's nothing we can do to reverse them,
but it gives a great opportunity to start a dialogue and offer some other
points of view.  And giving more perspectives can only be good for the next
round of articles.  So I kindof like when these things get posted; it
notifies the rest of us of an opportunity to politely offer to improve the
quality of future reporting.

(just my tuppence)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 3:05 PM
> To: Simon St.Laurent; xml-dev
> Subject: RE: It is Pretty Dumb (Was RE: Not so stupid (was re: More
> Stupid XMLArticles))
> 
> 
> What Me Worry?  I just use this stuff.  
> 
> o  The web is an amplifier.  Without a palm on 
> the strings, a lot of noise goes a long way.
> 
> o Kicking dumb articles around is fun.  It 
> offers a perspective on just how far afield 
> things go because of item 1.
> 
> David is right of course.  We've been over 
> that ground before.  Just as the HTMLers 
> spent time kicking the bejeebers out of the 
> SGMLers in the early daze to make a place 
> for themselves at the table of the cybergodz, 
> now the XMLers are getting kicked around too. 
> It's the Web Way. Gotta love this new eCONomy.
> 
> "Of course it's rape. Aren't you enjoying it yet?"
> 
> What are the -L concerns?
> 
> Len
> http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
> 
> Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
> Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
> 
> 
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
> 
> John Dvorak's stock in trade is making provocative statements about
> computing so that people can say 'it is pretty dumb and he 
> knows better.'
> 
> Sadly, however wrong Dvorak is about specifics, there's 
> frequently some
> core truth there, as David Megginson explained so well.
> 
> Why is this list getting so hyper-sensitive about any press 
> that suggests
> XML isn't perfect?
> 
> You might want to take a look at XHTML-L for a bit more perspective on
> that.  Not everyone's excited about 'being saved.'  
> 
> http://www.egroups.com/group/XHTML-L
> 
> Tough and very real questions.
>