[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Cavnar-Johnson, John" wrote:
> I have no idea what you intended to contribute to this discussion. As
> a"programmer weenie"
a term of art much beloved of this list
> I feel confident that you have no interest in my opinion
Your confidence is misplaced; I am actively soliciting your opinion for this
discussion.
> but by promulgating this puerile drivel
I need only for you to point out precisely what qualifies for this
characterization and I shall make a sincere effort to amend it. I have no
more need for time-wasting and sophomoric cleverness than you, or anyone.
> you've earned a special place in my regard.
Which, again, I shall try to rectify if I might only know the specifics of
my argument which have so influenced you.
> I don't know if it is your pedantic sophistry
In my defense, I believe that I am the anti-sophist here. I teach nor
promote not single art nor skill, nor do I believe that there is a
particular 'good' or 'success' to be achieved through the application of a
particular practice. On the contrary, I am attempting to hold the door open
in this forum for the expression of those skills which are not predicated on
sophistic knowledge.
> or your insufferable rudeness which annoys me most.
If you feel that you are the object of my rudeness, I shall hasten to
apologize most sincerely to you, if I may only know in what particular I
have offended you.
> I do know that your sorrow "not to have been proved wrong" strikes me more
> as gloating than anything else
I assure you that I cannot gloat at what I fear is the destruction of the
most promising approach to solving the very problems I must wrestle with
each day. I am convinced that XML must embrace both opinions, and must not
be balkanized into subset predicated on the one or the other. It is only
because XML continues to cast a wide enough net that it is possible for me
and other practitioners to count on our tools working and our solutions
adding value when we cross the lines of schism to work in the other side's
fields, and in doing so bring working solutions where there were none.
> and your narrow view of what XML can be
Again, if you feel that on any occasion I have spoken for the narrowing of
XML, or indeed have failed to argue strenuously that it must not be narrowed
to any either of the document vs. data or well-formed vs. schematically
modelled alternatives, that is indeed a failure of mine, and I now retract
any such assertion.
> has devolved into a shibboleth you use to identify those worthy of your
> excoriation.
I do not believe that I exclude, but that I seek to include (and to prevent
myself from being excluded). Nor do I believe that I have ever here
excoriated anyone though, again, if you should point out where I have done
so I shall hasten to apologize, to retract and to make amends.
> I find XML useful in designing complex business systems because the
> document-oriented nature of XML is better able to model many business
> process artifacts than either the object-oriented or relational paradigms.
As do I.
> However, programming languages allow me to construct the logic of these
> applications, and relational databases still offer
> advantages in storage and retrieval.
I agree strongly.
> Hence, I'm very interested ways to make these disparate models talk to
> each other in effective and efficient ways.
As am I.
> I'm definitely not interested in "snatching" anything away from you or
> anybody else.
I am pleased to hear it. I am sure that you understand that if I am to
expect my tools to work in an environment in which they are not the norm,
then it is only through the adherence of that environment to the XML
specification that I may count on them doing so. If there is less than full
adherence, then I am greatly at risk that my ability to provide a useful
service in an environment which is nominally XML has been snatched from me.
> I don't see "direct access" as anything more than easier way(s) to
> incorporate XML documents into the systems I
> design. You may believe that I'm designing these systems incorrectly, but
> I fail to see how this is a threat to XML in the general case.
Provided only that full adherence to XML is not compromised, which would
surely result in those of us who use XML tools in ways unexpected in a given
environment being shut out.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Walter Perry
|
