Re: An open plea to the W3C (was Re: XInclude vs SAX vs validation)

[Murali Mani <mani@CS.UCLA.EDU>]

Excuse me.. i hope i am not counted as a theoretician??? :)

> Don't ask theoreticians, they find it all easy (and even if they don't
> they will probably say they do as they have egos like the rest of us
> and they are paid to be really smart).

not all theoreticians have egos... first of all, theoreticians are *not*
paid, irrespective of whether they are smart or not :)

But I like and relate to Sean's request.

cheers and regards - murali.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Sean McGrath wrote:

> [Elliotte Rusty Harold]
>
> >I'm not disagreeing that comments shouldn't have been put in the infoset.
> >However, since they are in the infoset now, they are in other specs (i.e.
> >XInclude) and I think APIs should be expressive enough to allow us to
> >fully implement W3C specs.
>
> Supporting all of XML 1.0 is completely laudable but there is a slippery
> slope here that I think needs to be
> pointed out.
>
> Here is the problem:
>          XML is simple - apart from all the bits that are not so simple:-)
>
>          The not-so-simple bits are not used by the majority but are used
> by disjoint bands of minorities.
>
>          Things need to be built on top of XML (validation, linking,
> styling, uniquification of names, addressing) etc. so...
>
>          Smart people figure out to make these things support *all* of XML
> 1.0 including the complex, uncommon bits
>
>          With each new layer, supporting *all* of XML 1.0 creates more and
> more complexities
>
>          The majority, who only use the simple pieces of XML 1.0, trust
> that the smart people are doing the right thing and
>          run with it.
>
>          Finally, the majority, bowled over by the complexity of it all,
> seek solace...
>
>          They find it in the open arms of proprietary APIs promoted by vendors
>          They find it in the tools they can buy that "hide the complexity
> of X*"
>
>          They end up in the same proprietary mess they looked to XML to
> extricate
>          themselves from!
>
> Maybe it is not too late. The W3C could stop for breath and find out what
> pieces of XML 1.0
> the majority *really* use. Don't ask vendors - they are not a reliable
> source of information. Don't ask
> consultants, their business case is based on complexity. Don't ask
> theoreticians, they
> find it all easy (and even if they don't they will probably say they do as
> they have
> egos like the rest of us and they are paid to be really smart).
>
> Instead, ask XML users. Zoom in on the uncommonly used bits that cause the
> most problems
> for the ancillary specifications  Work towards issuing new iterations of
> the core specifications
> that take things OUT rather than add stuff in. A bold, brave step that
> would differentiate
> W3C from all the previous tower-of-babel standards bodies.
>
> Do it as an experiment. Do it as a controlled fork. If it does not yield
> benefits, scrap it.
>
> Dare to do less. That is what made the web so great in the first place.
>
> Do it before vested interests grab the initiative.
>
> Do it before it is too late.
>
> Sean
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>