Lists Home |
Date Index |
It illuminates that we are content to argue about
things that are obvious given a technology.
They believe what they are fed. Feed them the
nonsense that well-formedness is all that is
needed 24x7x365 for any case and they will
quickly reinvent DTDs. Teach them that for
a closed case, and a reasonable approximation
of a solution for Schroedinger's equation for
their system that they cand do that, then they
will and it will work until a case breaks that
approximation. I don't care that they all
agree; I care that if they agree I have a
way to check their conformance using simple
means. Schemas are a heckuva lot simpler
than reading their code. Will it be done
in code too, sure. All of the time and for
every case; no.
Years were spent trying to open these systems
and now y'all want to close it all back up, hand
it all back to the programmers, and kiss off
progress. Ok, be webLuddites. :-)
From: Mike Champion [mailto:email@example.com]
10/4/2002 10:20:06 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>This is a silly thread. This stuff wasn't invented
Well, I've found it quite illuminating!
Industries that can't agree on a standard paper form using
technology that has been around for 500 years are
unlikely to agree on standardized schema using technology
that still doesn't interoperate reliably.
IMHO It's silly to argue against the proposition that
life would be easier (for us nerds anyway) if the damned
humans would just use the technology as it was intended. But its
equally silly to argue for the proposition
that that this is likely to happen anytime soon.