[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
>My annoyance is very simple: I haven't googled, but I don't think I
remember
>hearing you ever mention "indemnity" in this forum before about a month
ago.
It never came up before. Possibly like others, I blithely assumed that
other companies stepped up to the same risks we do and handled them
by similar means. Silly me. Then to inquire if XML facilities could
offer some hope of at least caging the dragons, that is sooo off
topic. Silly me again. Symbols have the meaning we give them.
So far so good. Maybe those schemas should be more meaningful.
Maybe the namespace identifiers inherited from the committees
that write them can be more meaningful. Maybe the processes
by which standards are written should reflect the measure of
risk implementors must undertake. Maybe if the XML applications
came, as some do, with object models that enable interoperation
instead of trusting bits on the wire that are meaningless to
do what they can't do, warranty interoperation, things would be
better. On the other hand, maybe we should just leave all of
that to chance. So far, that is what many have been doing, not all.
I think we could do better, but maybe not. It takes agreement
to make a change, or force. I am a believer in inventing the future,
not suffering it. Silly me.
>> There are no semantics in markup except what
>> we put there in the running code. It is the
>> relationship of the markup and what it can
>> provide as proof and the running code which
>> is indemnified on its own merit that we
>> should explore. Perhaps we will discover
>> that there are ways and means to manage the
>> risks in common and by more honorable means
>> than EULA and GPL.
>Wow. Far out. Since I can't make any sense at all of this, I think that's
my
>cue to step out of the discussion.
Ok. There may be solutions. We may be a part of them. Or not.
len
|
