xml-dev - Re: More Stupid XML Articles

[Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@qub.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>


> > <q>
> > There are no universal vocabularies, so each XML promoter 
> > just does things its own way.
> > "Our way is the best!" The next company over, of course, is 
> > doing XML differently. For a
> > large company that subscribed to the methodology of company A 
> > and spent millions of
> > dollars to do so, it will be frustrating when, for some 
> > unknown reason, the company B
> > approach becomes universal and a true standard. Nobody knows 
> > what to do about this. Death
> > of simplicity.
> > </q>
> > 
> > Please, tell me what do you mean saying  "I know what to do 
> > about this" ?
> > 

> Well, I do not think that XML should be viewed as yet another tool to
> clobber the whole world into speaking the same vocabulary.  To me, XML is
> most appealing when you realize that it's impossible to get everyone to
> speak the same language.  

I don't see Dvorak saying anything about XML being yet another 
tool to clobber the whole world into speaking the same vocabulary.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you are answering this question, but
not some other question.

Let's dig a bit deeper. 

There are actually 2 questions here:

1. What Dvorak means by 'this' ?
2. Do you know what to *do* about 'this' ? 

My understanding is that 'this' is :

<q>
... it will be frustrating when, for some  unknown reason, the company 
B approach becomes universal and a true standard. . Nobody knows 
 what to do about this.
</q>

So what is 'this' and 'what to do about 'this'' ?

<cut/>


... Ah. nevermind, please ...

I just realized that Dvorak was too happy with HTTP and HTML, 
because they were simple but relatively universal tools not 
too much polluted by evil vendors ( we know that vendors
are evil, right? ;-) 

Now when he feels the good old model of proprietary games 
he begins to cry "I don't want it back!"

I mean before XML - there was ( and of course it still 'is') that
vendor-specific game with proprietary tools / solutions / 
methodologies for that company A and company B e t.c. 

Web changed the things with perl and HTML ;-). A bit. 
But 'a bit' was enough. ;-)

Now the 'things' are of course 'back'. They're just called 
'XML standards' instead of 'proprietary tools'. I'm simplifying 
this point, because some of W3C inventions are cool on 
they own. But some are not.

On another hand, the 'preceding'  'big vendors with proprietary 
tools'  also did some cool stuff. 

So what Dvorak  is saying is in fact : "look - with XML we'll get 
the same old stupid game, but there will be the war of 
'XML standards'  instead of the previous war of proprietary 
tools".

<q>Death of simplicity.</q>

By 'simplicity' he means a breath of fresh air we got when 
web was young and HTML + HTTP were driving the world ;-)

I think Dvorak is not fighting XML. He is fighting corporate 
America, he just *thinks* there is something 'XML-specific'. ;-)

Dvorak is a bit naive. But not only him is naive about XML.
When I hear that merchants will allow customers 
to browse their databases, comparing prices on Amazon 
vs B&N - I can't take this seriously.  

I think that 'bright future Web'  s about yet 
another movie ( usually porn ) running on the computer.
Or in the cell-phone ;-) Not too much place for 
XML there, I think. ;-)

This is my understanding and I think corporate America
is really something <q>Nobody knows what to do about this</q>

;-)

So Dvorak is in fact 'correct'. But because  being 'correct' means 
nothing, maybe the article was really not worth publishing. On another 
hand it forced me to think about claims Dvorak did and I realized 
some other things ( in fact this is my third attempt to write the 
conclusion ;-) I wish the puzzle is now solved and my understanding 
of his words is accurate.

Rgds.Paul.