[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Tom Bradford <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:14:59 -0500
From: Tom Bradford [mailto:email@example.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
Of course, the Canadians are the future of water monopolies.
>The W3C isn't a standards body? Could have fooled me:
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.