Re: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:


> Meanwhile the existing XML code keeps working.
> Meanwhile, the existing XML code keeps working.
> Meanwhile, the existing XML code keeps working.

> Meanwhile, the existing XML code keeps working at the 
> same cost.

> Meanwhile, the existing XML code keeps working.


If W3C does anything or nothing, or ISO does anything or
nothing, or private persons and organizations do anything,
or nothing, then existing code will work with existing
documents.  Nothing that is not changed will change.
So that refrain is meaningless.

The existing code will *not* keep working with the
privately extended documents, so the people who need
these private extensions will be second-class citizens.

Standardizing Blueberry gives people who want to write
native-language-markup documents that a single way to do so.

Standardizing Blueberry gives a simple upgrade path for
existing XML parsers: most software upstream of the parser
will just be able to cope right away.

Standardizing Blueberry gives documentation and test-suite
writers a single target to write to.

> *Or we have a variety of public and private solutions to specific 
> problems whose costs are borne by
> those who specify and implement the solutions to these.  Meanwhile, the 
> existing XML code keeps working.*
> 
> *And **the downside is?*


The same as the downside of any other proprietary document
format.  But you knew that.

-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein