----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 3:43
Subject: RE: breaking up?
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
trick is selling it. If the web has demonstrated anything,
though, it convinces
that the need to belong followed by the need to dominate are so
mammals as to be instinct. We lead by plausible logic then
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
one owns the intellectual property and it takes deep pockets to
fight for copyrights and trademarks. Avoid the latter, use the
you see fit. Interoperability like religion is "a smile on a
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
> From: Michael Brennan
> 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