[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:21:34AM -0600, Aaron Skonnard wrote:
> > I suggest taking a look at the list of fallacious arguments[0]
> > especially Argument By Authority[1]. Saying that some "experts" have
> > endorsed a technology is not a way to argue its technical merits.
>
> Fair enough, although I'm not sure it's exactly the same since these
> "experts" represent us.
>
> The fundamental problem is that we need to agree on a type system. The
> next problem is that we have to decide via committee.
And now you're Begging the Question[3]. Given the amount of
well-reasoned and heartfelt criticism that has recently been leveled at
those two assumptions, especially the former, you might want to provide
a little more support for your argument.
> HTTP. The power is in compromise.
No, the power is in *workable* compromises. Some compromises are
unworkable (not to touch off a political flamewar, but how about Israeli-
Palestinian peace treaties as an example?).
Furthermore, whenever the notion of power is involved, we should ask
just who is empowered, and in what way. One of the objections to XML
Schema (which I won't lay out in detail here, since it has been raised
many times in this and other forums) is that XSDL's weight and
complexity make it an impractical tool for anyone but the sort of large,
well-funded vendors who perhaps-coincidentally-but-probably-not make up
the Schema Working Group--with the likely result that everyone else will
be forced to use the prepackaged Schema-based solutions that those
vendors provide, whether they are the right tool for the job or not.
[3] http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#begging
--
Matt Gushee
Englewood, Colorado, USA
mgushee@havenrock.com
http://www.havenrock.com/
|
