[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>There are certainly cycles where the list is closer to or further from
>that goal, but I think it's done very well over the past six years at
>helping people make XML work, at levels from parser writing to pipeline
>creation to business integration and the cultural problems which arise
>when new technologies appear. "Supporting" can take a lot of different
>forms, though it's pretty clear that not everyone wants or needs the
>same kind of support.
>
As a 'net user for 20 years, I know how a mailing list can go off
topic pretty easily and degrade into a shiny little clique. All it
takes is for the 'old timers' to forget that the list is not their
pretty little plaything, and ignore the plight of newcomers.
Unless someone points it out to them, list-monkies who have hung in
the tree for years and years will just go about their merry way,
using a list like its a social club, chatter chatter ...
There's nothing wrong with getting a social life from a mailing list.
I'm not disputing that - for 6 years - xml-dev has been useful. Just
that, lately, with all the political diatribe and soapbox'ing, it is
detracting from the xml development subject, and there are plenty of
newbies who have asked for help from so-called 'experts' and
'old-timers' in the XML field, only to be ignored in favour of
discussing SCO's latest round of tactics (loosely justified as a
'XML-in-licensing-issues' context).
That is all.
>Maybe the world needs an "xml-utterly-practical" list? You're hardly
>the first person I've heard with this complaint. I doubt I'd join it,
>but that would probably make the utterly-practical folks cheer anyway.
There are a lot of people still yet to learn about XML well enough to
be able to fully use it productively, and a list like this would be
very, very welcome in my opinion.
One of the biggest problems with XML is the snooty attitude that
comes with having implemented it here and there... I swear, some
people treat their XML competency like it was a friggin' diploma or
something. As a technology, XML would have to be one of the most
mired down in beauracracy and show-boating.
>It's a technology, it's a medium, it's interesting. As technologies go,
>this one has a lot of depth, and not just because the specs have grown
>enormous.
Well I for one would like to see more technical discussion about XML,
and less about the politics of business. I'm sure I'm not the only
one. If I came across a bit too strong its only because I'm
incredibly frustrated at downloading so much XML-DEV mail only to
find its some undeniably boring chat between two people who would be
better served by the company at slashdot.org ... where there are
plenty of other smart monkies to talk about SCO with.
--
;
Jay Vaughan
r&d>>music:technology:synthesizers - www.access-music.de/
*
|
