Lists Home |
Date Index |
> You were pointing out holes in the plot? I certainly didn't
> read that.
"These users make up the faction of XML bohemians. They are more
concerned with the text content of XML data than they are with any class
or type that might be associated."
I hope I'm getting this right, but you seem to see a gentry class that wants
stongly bound types, and a bohemian class that wants loosely bound types.
Given that definition, I'm le Boheme.
But to me the real class struggle is between those who will make a living by
adding complexity, and those who must struggle against it. It's not a
meta-data issue, it's a complexity issue. And I realize I'm posting to a
list that has many readers who are wonderful at dealing with complexity,
making a good living off of understanding and explaining complexity, and
wondering what the issue is.
But no technology exists for long unless it solves problems, some complex,
and some simple. The technological barrier to entry to solve simple problems
should be low. You should only pay for what you use. That's such an old
maxim it's become cliche.
Anyway the presciption is easy: modularize the Recs through levels of
indirection. However, gulping down the medicine is going to be horrible. It
really pushes the complexity issues onto the designers and away from the
casual user. But eventually the complexities of compounding of x number of
XML technologies is going to make the medicine look positively tasty.