[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:13:54 -0600
The UDDI guys can call it anything they like too
and when you wretch, you are in a self-inflicted
state. If the UDDI says it is a standard, then a standard
We choose a means to choose a means:
you chose the W3C polity. The UDDI community
can make that choice too. The words
outside the context of who uses them
become meaningless unless we have
a broader agreement for use. The meaning
is in the expected behavior, what you
call "practical intents and purposes".
Since the W3C chooses the terms, recomendation
or specification, I use their terms for their
artifacts. They probably have something
in mind for that interpretation which
might make a fine contribution to a semantic web
in a list of "practical intents and purposes"
they test to ensure their definition of use.
And so relentlessly on to abstraction.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
I quite deliberately pollute that word. I consider the W3C's use of
"Recommmendation" instead of "Standard" to be disingenuous. The W3C
publishes standards for all practical intents and purposes. The
technical details of why they're not called standards (which change
depending on who you're talking to) should all be resolved by
changing the process to make them legal standards; not by being
satisfied with de facto standards and de jure "recommendations".