Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: <AndrewWatt2000@aol.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] W3C Successes (RE: [xml-dev] W3C Culture and Aims )
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:44:58 -0700
- Thread-index: AcHsVp4ANRQKiM9AQPCjGWeAtIIWAwAAA0EA
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] W3C Successes (RE: [xml-dev] W3C Culture and Aims )
me about it, I'm already experiencing this first hand (XQuery depends on W3C XML
Schema). What I find interesting is that Henry T is equating "new work" with the
kind of work a *standards* body is supposed to be tackling. This seems to be the
opposite of what a body that should be setting "standards" should be doing and
it shows in the current family of technologies coming out of the W3C.
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
If you want to recapture your youth, cut
off his allowance.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no
warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use. © 2002
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
In a message dated 24/04/02 22:53:45 GMT
Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
Um, as regards XML, you're joking, right? Look at the
_completely_ unlike HTML, it was way out ahead of
what any vendors
were thinking about, much less trying-and-failing to
was in fact a lot like XSLT and XML Schema:
real new science was done
New "science" is arguably a potentially
dangerous approach for a standards-setting body/group to take. Not least when
it is paralleled by associated embedding of requirements for use of the result
(XSD Schema) in other W3C technologies.