[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
And that isn't really hard to do. If we step back from the
XMLness of it and look at the application we are building,
it is not too hard to show why XML is benefitting us. On
the other hand, if we step back and realize XML got applied
just because it was there, that project has a problem. That
is the fear of asking the question, the fear of introspection
at the local level.
So, does XML thrive based on very large specifications for
document vocabularies that take years to complete, or does
it thrive based on system to system communications worked
out during the implementation of the interfaces?
Both, but one is a slow wheel and the other is fast. The first
has to be sold top down; the second just gets built.
XML can absolutely work with the bigLangs, but small
scopes better, faster, and the learning curve if
awkward is still moving forward. My problem with
the "Is XML useful?" articles is they have to say
for what before I can answer. Otherwise, we will say
yes, take their money, and they have no recourse
except to whine about it in USA Today. Caveat emptor.
len
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
5/22/2002 9:17:35 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> wrote:
>Tools aren't what we lack. Applications are what we lack.
> ... [XML] makes no sense
>to the CEO out of the box except to say "well, everyone is doing it" and
>that is precisely the hyped stupidity that got SGML in trouble, object-oriented
>programming in trouble, AI in trouble and a lot of otherwise valuable but
>almost failed emerging tech.
I guess that's the answer to my question in a nutshell. "What's wrong" is that
XML/Web developers and advocates got used to life in the "everyone is doing it, me
too!" era, and we now live in a "I'll buy it it has a substantial short term
velue" era.
"What is to be done" is that we have to "sell" (literally or figuratively)
the tools by pointing to the successful applications that they built,
not by appealing to the fearof not being on the Next Big Thing bandwagon.
That means that we have to justify the XML specs in terms of tangible
practical benefit to users rather than "wouldn't be cool if we could ..."
or "we all know that the Right Thing is to ...".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
