[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Guy Murphy <email@example.com>,"Simon \"St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:10:39 -0500
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.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Guy Murphy [mailto:email@example.com]
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
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.