[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Tom Bradford <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:40:22 -0500
From: Tom Bradford [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>>"Meanwhile, the existing XML code keeps working."
>What would prohibit it from continuing to work in either case? Seems to
>me that a superset of allowable characters is backward compatible with
>the existing specification. And besides, that's what version numbers
What indeed? Perhaps the cost of rebuilding the parsers because
of a bit of paranoia about where they will be used, feature-envy,
whatever. It is like flood-mitigation: many residents don't like
to pay for the mistakes of real estate developers twenty years after
they take the profits because the original land surveys lied about the
history of the property and the likelihood of flooding.
>The last thing anyone should want to do is fragment XML, because it
>defeats the overwhelming benefit of XML, that being the ability to
>interchange data in a brain-dead easy fashion.
But it has failed. Thus Blueberry.
>The last thing I want to
>hear anyone say is that it's perfectly ok to have an incompatible custom
>implementation of XML. I think we've seen enough history of splintered
>standards turning our lives into living hells.
You are living in Hell? Do you have flooding there too?
The most I am daring is that this is a problem best solved
in SGML where the solution is both legal and standard. It seems that
you are mistaking XML with a standard. It isn't. It is a product of
the W3C Consortium that depends on a legitimate relationship with the
owner of the intellectual property, ISO, for it's provenance. If, on the
other hand, the W3C decides to change XML, it is their property, so theirs
to do so and to pay for. The question of cost is basic but undetermined.
Cowan suggests it is not as high as other think. If it is, there are
alternatives. Clark suggested a hack by relaxing WF name constraints. A
version number change will open up other opportunities (here come
Do you think it possible that these may also be "splinters"?