Re: breaking up?

[Guy Murphy <guy-murphy@easynet.co.uk>]

Title:

Anybody who went through the debacle of doing web design (as opposed to web development) for v4 of IE/NS wouldn't simply dismiss the desire for agreed upon standards as a need to belong, or a need to dominate... a lot of Web designers would emphasise a need to go home and spend time out of the workplace.

 

There was blood all over the place during that bowser war... one of the reasons why standards suddenly became so popular among a section of the audience.

 

Its easy to forget, and when we do there'll be blood all over the place again.

 

Cheers

    Guy.

----- Original Message -----

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len)

To: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com ; xml-dev@lists.xml.org

Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 3:43 PM

Subject: RE: breaking up?

That worked for the SGML implementors who didn't need the options.  The

inventor of SGML once told me he was surprised more didn't do that.  The

trick is selling it.   If the web has demonstrated anything, though, it convinces

me that the need to belong followed by the need to dominate are so ingrained

in mammals as to be instinct.   We lead by plausible logic then dominate

by plausible promises.  In truth, the future is what you are willing to

fight for and that is why the instinct is to belong first.  You have to make it

happen and making it happen means choosing who chooses choices.

 

No one owns the intellectual property and it takes deep pockets to

fight for copyrights and trademarks.  Avoid the latter, use the former

as you see fit.  Interoperability like religion is "a smile on a dog".

Len

http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]

> From: Michael Brennan [mailto:Michael_Brennan@allegis.com]
>
> Too bad we can't go back and start over with the benefit of hindsight.

Why can't we? SOMEBODY is going to do this SOMEDAY ... why not us, now?

You don't need a new standards body or sanctioned working group to document an XML subset (or SGML profile, if you want) that simply ignores the stuff that doesn't carry its weight.  "Just say no" to defaulted attributes, ambiguous namespaces, validating with schema languges that are harder to use than to write procedural business logic, and so on.  Even if implementers can't "go back and start over", users can ignore that which doesn't help them solve real problems, authors and consultants can recommend that which does work, purchases can be made on the basis of what really works, etc.

If the folks "leading the web to its full potential" via the PSVI-oriented specs turn around in a couple of years and discover that no one is following, why is that a problem for the rest of us?  Conversely, if they *do* sort it all out and make it work in the real world someday, what have we lost by letting them do the bleeding on the bleeding edge?