[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I'm sorry, but you've slightly mistaken the nature of my comment. It was
not
I know nothing about <foo>, but I'll sound off about <foo> anyway
it was
I don't know about <foo>, but I know something to the point about <bar>
I was declaring myself unqualified to opine about Office 11 XML, but was
speaking to the point that was the start of the "Special parsers"
thread, the possibility of adhering to standards and yet making it
difficult for others to process the result.
I do regret the way I put my comment. I think I succeeded in obscuring my
main point and contributing to misunderstanding.
Chris Gray - Systems Analyst - University of Waterloo Library
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> I've always wondered about the people with mindset that enables them to make statements like
>
> "I am ignorant about <foo> but here is an uninformed and biased opinion anyway".
>
> What purpose does posting such comments serve besides acting as an advertisement of your biases?
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Chris Gray [mailto:cpgray@library.uwaterloo.ca]
> Sent: Fri 3/21/2003 6:47 AM
> To: Simon St.Laurent
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Special XML parsers
>
>
>
> Without knowledge of Office 11 XML, I _can_ say that Microsoft has
> mastered the techniques of hiding in plain sight. Obfuscated C will
> compile and excecute, but actually reading and understanding the source
> code is another matter. Automatically generated code can quickly become
> dense beyond human powers of comprehension. It may be possible to use
> Microsoft products to produce clean code, but just let one 'nice' little
> feature seduce the unsuspecting user and...
>
> And they said _I_ was mad...
>
> Chris Gray - Systems Analyst - University of Waterloo Library
> It's GNU/Linux dammit! <http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html>
> Happy Birthday RMS!! GNU/Linux Month, 16 Mar 03-15 Apr 03
>
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>
> > joshuaa@microsoft.com (Joshua Allen) writes:
> > >One might
> > >wonder why he would mention these two unrelated things (Office 11 XML
> > >and "proprietary XML") in the same article.
> >
> > I look forward to the time when more developers have encountered Office
> > 11 XML for themselves. It'll be nice when the complaints are grounded
> > in reality rather than speculation. ;-)
> >
> > --
> > Simon St.Laurent
> > Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
> > Errors, errors, all fall down!
> > http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
> >
|
