Lists Home |
Date Index |
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 2. Validity. According to what or whom? Most serious
> professionals know that validation is a requirement for
> some cases and other than choosing the means, it becomes
> the organization's job by policy to decide when and if
> to validate. SGML says, always. XML says, it's up to
> you. That means the answer to "who do you trust" gets
> answered every time you negotiate implicitly or explicitly.
> If you just want the computers to decide, you leave it
> to SGML. If you want humans in the loop, XML does that.
That's an oversimplification on so many levels that I don't have time to
go into it.
> You have to decide where the liberal features are to be
> implemented. The web architecture is not the most powerful
> distributed computing system ever devised. It is in many
> ways, weak and a throwback to the days when people were
> cheap and computers were expensive.
It is easy to throw stones in the abstract. I could just as easily say
Len Bullard is a throwback to the days when people were cheap anc
computers were expensive. But it wouldn't be meaningful.
We are technologists. Point to the better technology and describe how it
is better. Be concrete. Show how it could have or did scale as well or
better than the Web.
> Insofar as we can say "the web" is real, we have to
> also say, "it is not all there is on the Internet and
> you may want to choose a different set of components
> to use in your implementation". Then it becomes a lot
> harder than HTML. Address unification is done on the
> Internet not by URIs but by the DNS. The map above
> that which HTTP negotiates is just component-based
> logic. Nothing real or required, but extremely
Component based logic? Please explain.
Just "convenient"? Show me how a system like the Web could work without
URIs. One domain name per document? How do you decide what protocol to
use to retrieve it?
> If addresss unification via URIs is all there is to
> the web,
On a couple of occasions I've emphasized that URIs are not "all there is
to the Web" but rather are its defining and central characteristic. If
you aren't intersted in what I have to say then why are we talking?
> ... the W3C and TAG's jobs became obsolete quite
> a while back and mission creep has definitely set in.
I've already answered this point also.