RE: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

From: Tom Bradford [mailto:bradford@dbxmlgroup.com]

>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.

But wasn't the XML DePH hacker argument precisely that we needed to make 
things easy for a few thousand or so programmers?  Have we suddenly 
decided that now we must make their lives harder rather than simply 
using SGML?  Or is it possible we have a hard time admitting 
XML is something of a fraud?  Ok, strong language... a weak imitation 
of its parent for which this was not a problem except that it  
it kept the implementation problem squarely in the hands of implementors.

>> But it has failed.  Thus Blueberry.

>Exactly... So we fix it, and help to further avoid future problems.

Or we kick it back to the parent for which this is not a problem.  Of 
course, then we have to say XML is something of a fraud and the W3C 
doesn't own or control the solutions.  They won't like that or us.

>> 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.

Ah.  But it's a dry heat compared to North Alabama.  We have better 
tasting water than Phoenix which is why I am out buying up rights faster
than Vivendi. 
Of course, the Canadians are the future of water monopolies.

>The W3C isn't a standards body?  Could have fooled me: 
>   http://xmlhack.com/read.php?item=1174

They fool a lot of people. They are a private consortium.  It's like 
Scottsdale: some golf courses are open to the public and some aren't.

len