Re: [xml-dev] Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

>     Are acts of "civil disobedience" against "needlessly complicated
> and confusing" specs a Good Thing because they point us in the right
> direction or a Bad Thing because they cause chaos?

Is that really what's going on, though?   Choose (a) or (b):

    An XML application is an application which ___ be written
    using a fully conformant general purpose XML processor.
        (a) may
        (b) must

The generically testable parts of the XML spec relate to what
an XML processor does.  But I don't think there's a requirement
there that all applications _must_ use one; that's only an "assumed"
scenario, according to para 3 of section 1.

Hmm ... SGML-is-to-XML as XML-is-to-{disobedient-stuff}.

I guess that puts me firmly in the "grey" camp:  disobedience
itself is neither good nor bad.  Good/Bad is an ethical issue,
not a question of law; we have plenty of bad laws.  (And a
recent rush to create lots more "to fight terror", sigh.)

- Dave

p.s. Though I'm curious why the original question equated
     "bad" and "chaos".  Seems to me that diversity is healthy,
     it's monoculture which is bad!  :)