[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: intertwined specs
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:26:33 -0500
At 12:58 PM 2/16/01 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Hard problems; heavy solutions. I only got mad
>when the XML spec was tossed to the floor asserting
>it would be easy after that. Anyone with experience
>knew it would only get harder and more complex.
>But easy? That IS how XML was sold, I agree. Caveat emptor.
The way I like to put it is that "simple things should be simple to do". I
think that's what is getting lost in the intertwined jungle of specs.
I don't want to get in the way of
On the other hand, I don't want their needs to obscure the simple and
powerful stuff you can do without the heavy-duty complexity. And that, I'm
afraid is what's happening now. Molehills all seem to look like mountains
to the people with nuclear weapons, or something like that.
It's nothing new - I bounced off of HyTime pretty violently because it
didn't clearly offer any simple way to do simple projects. XML did offer
such things, but now I think they've been buried under an incredible pile
of brilliant clutter yet again.
Maybe some other organization will eventually take on XML much as the W3C
took on SGML. Always seems to produce an uproar, but there's some light in
that heat. And hey, maybe they'll have a less-restrictive confidentiality
policy, and fewer dreams of machine intelligence.
Back to labeling that road map...
Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly and Associates
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books