RE: ??? (was RE: A simple guy with a simple problem)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

No.  Simple is good.  Too simple for 
safety is bad.  Knowing which is which 
is the trick.

DTDs?  Schemas?  How do you know when 
what is simple for you is too simple 
for the next guy?   How do you know 
that what Henry proposes isn't precisely 
what is needed for that guy to get 
his job done?  We can't treat XML 
spec work as an XP programming 
exercise.  There isn't enough 
room in front of the screen for 
everyone involved to sit down and 
write the unit tests.

Daring to do less is still a dare.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 3:36 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: ??? (was RE: A simple guy with a simple problem)


To the extent that you're making a distinction between technology 
appropriate for use in prototyping systems and technology appropriate in 
production systems, you have a point.

Pushing that any further as a point about 'simplicity' (something you 
genuinely seem to dislike, if not consider downright impossible), 
particularly as it might be relevant to XML document structures, seems 
stretched at best, inappropriate at worst.