RE: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)

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

Thanks.  If I reload SoftQuad Author/Editor and load 
the right declaration, I should be able to use the 
XML software too.  Nice how that works.

SGML is still there in case given decisions such as "we don't 
want these characters in XML because given the business 
case, we don't need them", those who do need them can. 

Now, despite all the smileys, past posts, and a background 
in Eastern religions, do you really think I want the 
Buddhist texts to disappear?  Or is it perhaps the case 
that reliance on requirements such as DePH, Internet Time, 
"it MUST be simple", and so forth, eventually lead to 
the kinds of absurdities, perhaps even injustices that 
a mature and dedicated group of designers would avoid? 

A few years ago as the XML design effort was beginning, 
I received a very serious email from a very well placed 
W3C member suggesting XML and the Web should be "english only"
based on implementation costs and access. 
I realized at that moment just how carefully such 
privately-based initiatives should be monitored 
particularly if they are launched and sustained with 
slogans and propaganda that seek to replace completely 
the original working solutions.

Making XML subject to only requirements a programmer 
recognizes is to lose the very benefits it offers. 
Machines reading and exchanging markup documents aren't 
the only things to be satisfied.  Nor are particular 
cultures.   Who should decide when cost is more 
important than culture?   I agree with Elliotte 
that the analysis should be thorough, but at the 
end of that, the decision should be humane.  Otherwise, 
we impoverish ourselves and our heirs.  If Blueberry 
or something like it doesn't pass, based on what 
we are reading here, we will lose something of value, 
or force it back into SGML where if I am to take 
the SGMLSux folks seriously, it would be accessible 
only to folks like myself who actually still do 
have a leg to stand on.

It may be the case that these are not the kinds of 
decisions consortia or mail lists should be 
allowed to make.   It is the case that ISO with 
the government as its customer thought longer and 
harder about such requirements and did create a 
better design even if harder to implement.  At the 
very least, they considered the alternatives.

Protect your options.  They are harder to put back 
than to take out.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Murphy [mailto:guy-murphy@easynet.co.uk]

Well, nobody actualy cut your foot off Len. SGML is still there if you care
to use it.... just a large body of people decided to hop of in another
direction.

Not commenting on the broader issue of SGML and XML simply pointing out that
*your* foot is still intact should you care to use it.