xml-dev - Re: Begging the Question (the novel)

[Lisa Rein <lisarein@finetuning.com>]

hi paul:

I didn't mean to degrade this thread into a holy war.  

It was my novel, and I was just commenting on the progression.

Apologies for drifting off into the "big hug" ether..:-)

I've sure learned alot in the past few days from this list. 

When I reread the threads, I bet i'll really know what i learned :-)

thanks,

lisa

Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lisa Rein <lisarein@finetuning.com>
> 
> > I'm just jumping in here to make an observation that I think it is
> > interesting that Uche "isn't interested in XML Schema", he just uses XML
> > Namespaces, and Now Paul "isn't interested in RDF"  he just wants XML
> > Namespaces to remain holy
> > (and to guard the golden dereferencing grail before it falls into the
> > wrong hands).
> 
> Correction. ( A lot of ).
> 
> I'm not interested in RDF, I'm not interested in XSD and I'm also not
> interested in Namespaces.
> 
> The only thing I'm interested in is not getting yet another de-facto
> XML standard.
> 
> Period.
> 
> I wish you re-read the thread from the begginnig ( when it
> was "simple question on namespaces"). Especially letters
> from Andrew  ( who is one of the authors  of Namespaces
> spec and as usual, as it happens when one of XML gods
> starts talking to us, mortals, his words are still most
> important part of the thread, I think. I'm not kidding. )
> 
> I don't want  to 'guard the golden dereferencing grail'.
> I don't think there is a holy grail at the end of
> namespace URI.
> 
> I don't care if tomorrow W3C will decide that URI should
> point to RDF. I don't care is tomorrow W3C will decide
> that URI should point to XSD.
> 
> I'l not use this binding anyway, because I don't
> use kinda similiar and existing DTD and XSL bindings
> which are already blessed by W3C.
> 
> I don't care if tomorrow Tim Bray's idea of catalogs
> will be blessed by W3C or if *any* other idea
> will be blessed by W3C.
> 
> All those games around URIs are orthogonal to my
> view on XML so I don't care about *any* solution W3C
> will made on that binding.
> 
> I *do* care if such a descision ( whatever it will be ) will
> be performed  *not* by W3C and because current W3C wording
> allows such vendor-driven scenario I'm asking W3C to change
> the wording so that Tool X will not gonna happen.
> 
> That's it. I've been in the hell of writing code for
> Windows 3.0 platform, I've been in the hell of writing
> code for Java 1.0 platform, I don't want another hell
> of writing code for vendor-driven SW and who drives
> XML DNS - drives the SW.
> 
> I can not say that W3C is producing ideal papers
> or APIs, I can not say that W3C process is ideal,
> but sofar it is better comparing to  some big company
> driving the process.
> 
> What is not clear ?
> 
> I'm not looking for 'golden grail' of *any* kind. I'm
> too old for such a view on technology.
> 
> I just don't want to get into yet another hell of
> vendor-driven web, because it will be harder
> for me to compete with them.
> 
> W3C as a competitor is much better than a
> big vendor as a competitor. Very simple.
> 
> > But I think everybody is missing a very important point that ALL OF
> > THESE TECHNOLOGIES USE XML NAMESPACES.  So of course the dereferencing
> > issues are relevant across ANY TECHNOLOGY USING XML NAMESPACES.
> 
> Exactly. Yes. It is about Namespaces and only about Namespaces.
> To be accurate it is about the neutral wording used by Namespaces
> spec explaning the semantics of the namespace name == URI.
> 
> My first letter that started this thread was with the Subject :
> "a simple question on namespaces" .
> 
> > and that's why I feel, still, that we can't just hold some kind of a
> > moritorium on "how an XML Namespace URI value can be used to dereference
> > an actual document"
> 
> .. Why ? It  is the core  question of the thread ...  My answer
> is :
> 
> I don't care how, but let say explicitely that that 'how'
> should come from W3C *only*
> 
> > Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:
> >
> > > Really - I don't see what is related to the original topic of this thread.
> > > Are you talking about some RDF-based framework ?
> > >
> > > By the way, why you are talking about RDF ? There is no word
> > > RDF in the namespaces doc, there is no sign that those URIs
> > > will point  to RDF e t.c. If you have discovered some way how to
> > > use Namespaces with RDF - I don't understand how it is relevant.
> > > document"..and then further clarify that "oh, it's ok for RDF, etc."
> >
> > <lossofcool>
> > ALL OF THE W3C XML STANDARDS USE XML NAMESPACES.  WHAT PART OF THAT DO
> > YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?  ARE WE SUPPOSED TO ADD TO A LIST AT THE END OF THE
> > NAMESPACE SPEC EVERY TIME A NEW VOCABULARY COMES OUT OF THE W3C THAT XML
> > NAMESPACES APPLY TO?  TAKE IT AS A GIVEN.  YOU CAN COUNT ON IT.  DONE
> > DEAL.  SURE THING.  (JEEZ!)
> > </lossofcool>
> 
> Yes, I understand that all of the W3C XML standards use XML
> namespaces. Good for them, I think that it is plain silly, but
> 
> THIS HAS NO RELATION TO THIS THREAD ;-) We may
> start another holy war,  if you like.
> 
> I'l be very happy *not* to enter this "namespaces are good
> for you, and BTW - you can not  avoid them if using recent
> XML standards" .
> 
> 1. They are not good.
> 2. I can avoid them. Please don't ask me how can I do that. I can.
> For example - not using recent XML standards ;-) Yes, all of them.
> 
> W3C decided to go with Namespaces. Good for them.
> 
> This thread is not about Namespaces in general, but it is
> about 'neutral wording' of Namespaces specs which allows
> de-facto binding of URIs driven *not* by W3C.
> 
> ( I have a strange feeling that  I already wrote this thing .)
> 
> > This kind of attitude kinda frustrates me because it's really an
> > outdated perspective to just "not care" about other technologies that
> > aren't on your immediate radar in your own little corner of the web
> > world (especially when they really are on radar and you are just not
> > aware of it).  The whole point of the semantic web (and actually the
> > good old fashioned traditional web too) is to start connecting all this
> > stuff together and to eventually create systems to facilitate these
> > connections automatically.
> 
> When I say "I don't care" it usually means that "the issue you are
> pointing to is irrelevant to the point I'm making". I just use a bit shorter form.
> Sorry if it is really disturbing. In my defence I should say that
> using caps instead of  reading the original thread could be
> considered disturbing as well.
> 
> > We didn't jump topics when we started talking about how RDF might
> > dereference a document using XML Namespaces after the discussion about
> > how XML Schema might do the same.  We're still talking about connecting
> > instances of data models to their validating schemas -- be it XML, RDF
> > or whatever.
> 
> > It would be one thing if you guys were saying "I don't understand how
> > XML Namespaces apply to these other technologies, let's all work
> > together and figure this out"  but what I'm hearing is "I only care
> > about my little corner of the XML Namespace world -- to hell with
> > everything else -- but don't you go implementing any of this stuff too
> > successfully, too quickly or it's "no fair"...foul ball...
> 
> Hell with RDF, XSD and Namespaces, but not let the
> big vendor to take control over the .com .net and .org
> domains.
> 
> What is your point? Who are those "you, guys" ?
> We are all different here.
> 
> Officials of big companies need one set of things from W3C,
> officials of small companies need another set of things from
> W3C. Customers usually don't give a shit.
> 
> I'm not talking about something being 'fair' or 'no fair' and
> I dont understand your logic at all. Really.
> 
> Either W3C is The Law, or it is not. I see the broken law.
> I'm  pointing to this law saying : "it is broken. Wanna another
> disaster, like it was with XSL in MS IE ?"
> 
> What could be  the reaction to my statement?
> 
> Honestly - I don't care.
> 
> I just know that the law is broken and it is now up to W3C to
> fix the hole or to leave it as it is now.
> 
> I think its is funny that *me* who came from the country where
> the law means "Just Nothing"  is trying to explain to *you*
> that "The Law" is not about 'fair' or 'no fair' .  Not at all.
> 
> > All this schema stuff is so experimental, we really need a collaborative
> > free-for-all for a while to figure out how to do things.  Telling
> > developers not to innovate until a standard materializes that might
> > never actually materialize (and in fact has not even been started yet!)
> > isn't gonna fly.
> 
> You said "innovation" ? I see a pattern here. ...
> 
> Let me think ... I think I remember - there  is the company
> which is , you know ...  very innovative .... I hardly remember
> the name of that company,  and I hardly remember any innovation
> from that company ( usually they were producing 'improved version 2'
> of somebody's else innovation, like most of big comnanies do ) ,
> ... I just remember the word "innovation" attached to the name of
> that company... PR and all that stuff.
> 
> Funny you use this word "inovation".  After that PR company
> I'm getting very strange feeling when I hear the word "innovation".
> Especially when that "innovation" word is used as an excuse for
> abusing some law ( W3C specs are laws. Are they? )
> 
> Who tells developers not to innovate ? Me ???? What is the
> particular place in my posting which says that developers
> should not innovate ?
> 
> > This stuff has to work together to do anything useful.  We're all in
> > this together man :-)
> 
> Maybe my 10+ years experience is not typical, but all the situations
> in my life when people were talking too much about "team work"
> or "team spirit" usually resulted in stealing my money and/or
> ideas.
> 
> I mean that when I hear about "working together" this also
> clicks on something ... not really good ...
> 
> Let us *work* . And then we'l see. That's the way I see it.
> 
> Rgds.Paul.
> 
> PS.
> 
> By the way : "working together" implies opening W3C archives.
> 
> I hardly understand how can many people work together
> with some closed club which  pays no respect to the people
> who try to help. Oh, no -  not again ... I think *this*  topic has
> been discussed many times and I'd really *hate* this
> "how can we work together" to happen on XML-dev list again.
> 
> There are now at least 2 appropriate websites for bashing W3C,
> I suggest those who want to discuss all the beauty  of working
> together with W3C or together with MS or together with some
> other big organization are better to start those discussions in the
> appropriate place.