Re: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

 > I disagree completely. I think the burden of proof has to be on the
 > claimant who wants to break the entire existing installed base of
 > XML software and systems.

It would be if that is what was going to happen.  Existing documents
will continue to work with existing code, and for the future the
best practice would be not to generate Blueberry documents unless
the document demands it: these are documents that existing code
would have rejected anyway.

When Microsoft added the euro to existing code pages, did it
break the entire existing install base of Windows software and
systems?  It did not.  Some documents could not be properly
processed or rendered by older software, and in that case
there was not even an easy-to-read indication of which
documents exploited the new feature (rightly so, IMO).

 > If there are thousands of Ethiopian or Burmese or Khmer speakers
 > clamoring to write markup in their native script, then the change
 > would have large advantages that might be worth the cost. On the
 > other hand, if there are a few dozen native speakers who think it
 > might be nice to have this, but who are probably going to use
 > Docbook and XHTML 99% of the time anyway, then I don't think the
 > advantages are big enough.

Nobody can possibly know that until the choice is made available.
Given the choice between imperfect reality and superior vaporware,
which do you use to get work done?  Until the vaporware is realware,
there is no real choice.

-- 
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