Lists Home |
Date Index |
Mike Champion <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:46:17 -0800, Dare Obasanjo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Forwarded "XML Sucks" articles aren't really worth discussing.
> FWIW, I thought it was a different twist on "XML Sucks." If he thinks
> it sucks because it's boring, I think he's wrong -- the power of XML
> comes from the fact that the most useful parts are utterly boring.
> The parts that I think suck are the "interesting" parts.
> But I guess it's meta-boring to talk about what is boring :-)
Mike, the article has a point, and it's staggering: even though
$BIG_CO says XML is the solution to all problems, it is as likely to
be one as all the other things $BIG_CO said were going to. As far as
boring goes? I know people who claim character encodings are boring
(they are all Latin1 speakers). What is boring and what is exciting is
highly personal, and varies (both ways) with how much exposure one has
had to the subject. So you disagree with one Guy Kewney on what's
boring. Is that exciting? And why is he "gagged by a non-disclosure
agreement for a couple of weeks, or so" to say what everyone on this
list has known for months?
I must say though, that after reading the para you quoted, I had to go
read the entire thing just to see if the rest of it was as much a
random mix of keywords. I almost thought it was generated by one of
those trigram toys.