[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
- From: Tom Bradford <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 11:55:19 -0700
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 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 needs of the many outweigh the "oh crap, I have to maintain my
software" complaints of the few. I'd say a thousand or so programmers
updating (not rewriting) their parsers to support blueberry is a small
price to pay for the uncountable who will benefit from it in the future.
> >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.
Exactly... So we fix it, and help to further avoid future problems.
> >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?
Phoenix, AZ is Earthbound version of hell, and yeah, we have flooding
during the monsoon.
> 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
The W3C isn't a standards body? Could have fooled me: