[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:
> >That poses a bit of a problem for the XML community -- is the
> >rational response to "fix" the bits of XML that people stumble over
> >[awaiting shrieks from the people who shot down XML 1.1],
>
> A patently false slander. The objections to XML 1.1 were that it was
> "fixing" things no one was actually stumbling over, and indeed making
> breakage and stumbling more likely in the future.
I absolutely agree.
> Indeed several players argued that it was morally repugnant to
> even consider doing a cost-benefit analysis.
Exactly. The demands of justice are a side constraint, and can't be
reduced to just another entry in the maximization algorithm.
Personally, I don't urge people to write XML 1.1 documents unless they have
need for their features. I do urge parser writers to accept XML 1.1 documents;
the changes are trivial (though there is a cost of deployment).
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
Micropayment advocates mistakenly believe that efficient allocation of
resources is the purpose of markets. Efficiency is a byproduct of market
systems, not their goal. The reasons markets work are not because users
have embraced efficiency but because markets are the best place to allow
users to maximize their preferences, and very often their preferences are
not for conservation of cheap resources. --Clay Shirkey
|
