[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The SAX2 standard ? (was SAX2 bugs -- please file!)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Nicolas LEHUEN <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:38:31 -0500
"How are we going to make sure that all these specs and technologies keep
each other ? How are we going to prevent XML from exploding into multiple
sub-specs, thus failing to reach the possibilities of XML as an unifying
data exchange system ?"
Lots of groups decide, different groups select,
and depending on the tools you buy or build,
it lands on your desk. Make no mistake, it
is up to you to make sure your customer gets
what they pay for and need. Exercise promise control.
It's just that regardless of who provides the
spec or standard, there is no magic in any of these
documents. There is always the grunt task just like
building a hash table of testing these pieces,
testing the assemblies, and testing the tests
themselves. There are no guarantees from any
of the organizations that you can use to take them
to task that will recover your reputation or
assessed damages. Our world of technology is
On the other hand, lots of eyes are looking,
lots of hands are testing, and so far so good
in the majority of things. We sit here and hash
the specs and changes so we will be aware of the
unknowns. The multiple groups in the long run
are a good thing. They guarantee a certain balance
of effort and power. Making one group responsible
for all authoritative decisions has in every
case I can remember from history been a very
bad move. Checks and balances are not a design
that emerges from logic, but from human understanding,
something computer science still has a long way
to go to encode well.
Don't treat XML as a unifying standard. Treat
is as glue that binds things which if well-carved
and fitted will usually hold up under most extremes,
and if not, don't break because of the glue but
because they are force-fitted and under pressure.
SAX works because for the most part, David et al
didn't set out to do something extraordinary or
beyond the pale of what XML implies is possible.
They crafted based on requirements they understood
and applied solutions they knew would work. For
that reason, SAX will hold up with or without a
formal group to support it. What you may want to
worry about is processes that sometimes have to
as Blueberry is doing, reach right down to the
fundamental assumptions and tweak. In these
cases, pay careful attention and don't declare
a consensus unless you really have one.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h