[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
clbullar@ingr.com (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>Wait a minute. They also enable us to serialize objects
>we control. That is what extensible means. That they do
>it with CLR implemented languages only makes sense from
>their perspective. Better than the HTML straitjacket
>and waiting for results to come from committees controlled
>elsewhere with agendas that may not have anything to do with
>the businesses we are in.
Uh, Len? It's very generous that they let you serialize your own
objects in XML, but, well, you can already do that. You've been able to
do that since roughly 1998. I don't think that remotely gets them off
the hook for reinventing huge amounts of work in their own proprietary
image.
I'm not fond of committees either, but I'll take them over vendors any
day. Not that the W3C is perfect, but it's slightly less controlling
than Microsoft, and does listen once in a while to people on grounds of
tech, not just dollars.
Treating XML as an object serialization format tends to produce garbage
XML anyway, but if Microsoft wants to sell it as a great advance, that
is sadly their prerogative. They've certainly got the marketing budget.
Microsoft has never had too many qualms about poisoning tech practice
when they felt their own investments were at stake. They're not
renowned for their interest in the tech ecosystem.
This kind of regular trashing of the ecosystem is the best reason I can
see to get out of tech entirely. I'm not willing to be a thrall to this
kind of nonsense, and arguing with thralls and their keepers is
apparently a waste of time.
|
