[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
- From: Paul T <email@example.com>
- To: Benjamin Franz <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:22:40 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Franz <firstname.lastname@example.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
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.