RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

That's why some people are and have always 
been "sensitive" when the term "standard" 
is applied to W3C specifications.  The 
word pollution started here in XML and if we 
are now sickened by it, we have only 
ourselves to slap around for that.

We don't have to be mean about it, 
but those who write a lot for media 
about the subject should be scrupulous 
about these terms and not wave them 
off as insignificant *crap*.  Knowing 
that someday the shoe on the other 
foot may rest deeply in *crap* the bear leaves,
is a sign of savvy.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Edd Dumbill [mailto:edd@usefulinc.com]

Thank you for saying "initiatives" and not standards.  I'm still reeling
with nausea from hearing things like UDDI described as "standards" last
week at XML DevCon London.

All credit to David Turner of Microsoft who showed a slide displaying
which specifications in the "web services" arena were stable, in
progress or bluesky.  There was one box marked as stable.  XML 1.0.