Re: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail

[Paul T <paul@pault.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@nihongo.org>

> > 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).".

This 'only' reason is actually very important.

The XML development is almost doomed,  because 
coming with some working solution for XML ( but not 
being conformant to some W3C paper ) is a suicide. 

However, I think that this will change next five years, 
after people will realize that building on buzzwords 
is a pain, comparing to some proprietary stuff.

The man who've wrote the original article we are 
discussing - makes and interesting point about those 
previous monsters. 

All those committees, smart, reasonable and important 
people  on one hand - and just one Finnish student on 
another hand. This is the way it goes and this is the way 
is always was before, I think.

Rgds.Paul.