[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: A simple guy with a simple problem
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Sean McGrath <email@example.com>,firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:38:33 -0600
Yes. We can only make it work for
the average idiot and the common-sense
engineer. The extraordinary
idiot or the relentless expert beats
us almost every time.
What makes web spec work so difficult
is because there isn't one customer,
one market, or one set of requirements.
One dares to do less because it is
actually really *dangerous* to do more.
The freaking thing is an amplifier
and if you turn on the power with the
pots wide open, the feedback tears
the speakers out of the stacks.
On the other hand, when you need
a big system and a lot of watts,
you should know to turn it up
one pot at a time and keep a hand
on the Big Switch. We can't do
specs like that. There is no Big Switch.
Our problem is this is the first time we've had an
amplifier this big. All the concepts
of experience from previous work
informs our designs, but the scale
of the dammed thing defies any
prior experience. We can experiment,
but to what degree does the experimenter
get access to the microphone?
Compete or negotiate? Compete and negotiate?
Who knew the remains of the Soviet
army would turn to blackmail using
the WWW once sensitive very valuable
information was placed on it? Some things defy our
best efforts to guess and they are
usually things we never thought
would be an issue.
Oddly, it was the inability to secure
the Internet completely and just
that potential from the east that
scared the bejeebers out of my CALS
cohorts ten years ago. When they saw
the WWW design, they began to
drop over dead like mine canaries.
Their dieing word was: competence.
So, back to schemas and the infoset.
If schemas do less, will they do
enough for everyone? I don't think
it is realistic to answer that here.
Given any situation, a bad practice or
a bad hair day will change the answer.
But best guess?
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Tim Bray [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 3:04 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); Sean McGrath; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: A simple guy with a simple problem
At 01:42 PM 14/03/01 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>So to ask as straight man:
>Why does XML have a feature that permits
>a "bad practice"?
Any tool powerful enough to be useful for professionals
is going to be powerful enough to be dangerous when used
improperly. E.g. there are lots of examples of bad
practice that can produce poor results with chainsaws,
procedural programming languages, and 18-wheeler trucks.
The alternative - not having them - is unacceptable.
<nostalgia>Anyone remember the person worrying out loud
here about the "billion laughs" self-exploding
XML instance?</nostalgia> -Tim