RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail

[Benjamin Franz <snowhare@nihongo.org>]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> 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.

Do you believe that the adspeak 'previously owned car' is a beneficial
semantic over the common and well known understood 'used car'? Would you
use that term, just because the used car dealership *preferred* the term
'previously owned'?

Sometimes semantic artifacts are intended to *decrease*, not *increase*
comprehension. This is such a case. The *ONLY* reason for the avoidance of
the word 'standard' here is to allow companies to write non-compliant
implementations without getting beat up for it. "That's only a
_recommendation_, not anything as formal as a *standard*. We comply with
the *standards* themselves (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).".

-- 
Benjamin Franz

... with proper design, the features come cheaply. This 
approach is arduous, but continues to succeed.

                                     ---Dennis Ritchie