[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ??? (was RE: A simple guy with a simple problem)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:47:06 -0600
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.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 3:36 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); firstname.lastname@example.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.