[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)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Benjamin Franz <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:11:23 -0600
From: Benjamin Franz [mailto:email@example.com]
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
In conversation with the salesman or contract guy, I would. Once
I drove it off the lot to the ball field, I'd tell the dad next
to me about the great deal I got on the used car. Context counts.
>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).".
Well, you could in some cases make that interpretation and in a certain
percentage, be right. But, usually they call it a recommendation as
I understand it because the specification is for new technology, not
tech established by common practice. There are fuzzy boundaries here
as there are in all vocabularies and their authoritative definitions,
but when in Rome, order a pizza and take what you get until you find
a pizza parlor that makes deep dish according to your liking.
Under that interpretation, HTML 3.0 is a standard now and standards
bodies see it just so. HTML 4.0, not yet.
Actually, this is where XML gets beyond the march to abstraction.
Namespaces really are neat for stating when something is The Thing
or My Thing. There is this relentless debate about whether one
should allow extensions to Internet languages on the Internet, or
only on the vendor page. I say, "The Internet is Not The Local
Motel Where Exchange Parties May Be Illegal." The cost of policing
can't be justified with respect to harm to the local moral codes.