[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:
> The howls were large because the changes provided essentially no
> benefit to the vast majority of users, and yet imposed massive costs
> on all users.
I agree on the "essentially no benefit", disagree on the "massive costs",
and again point out that many of the howls were of the form "XML is
sacred and must never change, no matter how broken it might be!".
> A new version of XML in which the benefits outweighed
> the costs would encounter less resistance and gain more support.
Has there been a groundswell of support for Tim Bray's XML-SW? For LMNL?
I hope there will be, but early adoption doesn't seem to be forthcoming.
> >People implement new things, in general, because they provide added function.
> >Some people won't move to new things no matter how much added function they
> >provide, because their investment in the status quo is too large. W3C only
> >reflects this viewpoint, it doesn't create it.
>
> I don't believe that. When people choose not to move to new things,
> it is because the additional benefits they would accrue don't justify
> the costs incurred by the move. Occasionally, they don't move because
> even though the benefits would outweigh the costs, they can't afford
> the costs with their current capital.
I believe we are in violent agreement here.
--
Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML John Cowan
Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker jcowan@reutershealth.com
saying "No information items inside". http://www.reutershealth.com
--Eve Maler http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
|
