[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
joshuaa@microsoft.com (Joshua Allen) writes:
>I was a bit more charitable when reading the paper -- I assumed that
>the introductory comment about XML "deficiencies" was simply meant to
>acknowledge that there is a strain between the two common uses of XML
>(as syntax vs. as data) and not to "point a gun".
I don't believe this is the time or place to be charitable. For all the
brilliant work that follows the opening of that article, the assumptions
underlying the project have not a damn thing to do with "the essence of
XML" and lead them far afield. I have no concerns with them exchanging
whatever information they'd like using angle brackets, even if it hurts
them a bit, but I find their arrogance in calling this "the essence of
XML" downright breathtaking.
Laughter seems like the best response to such foolishness.
Unfortunately other people will likely read this and fall into its trap.
I guess maybe we can set up "essentialists anonymous" to help them out.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
