[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim Bray wrote:
> See http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/01/16/draconianism and
> http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/01/16/DraconianHistory -
> doesn't it just make your eyes misty? -Tim
>
I wonder if the large number of stupid (but successful) application
developers like me would have wanted to tackle a datasource that could
be just about anything.
The majority of my users don't know they are using XML, but I definitely
like the fact that when my app creates something broken I clearly know
it. Otherwise, my bugs would have children, grandchildren, ad infinitem;
tracing their ancestry would be such a pain.
It is such a simple thing to provide a well-formed instance that I don't
understand the issue. It is not like every instance *has* to be
validated against some XML Schema (or whatever). It makes things much
simpler for me so I can provide UIs to users who could care less about XML.
I have not followed the "Postel's Law" thread (dang, don't you guys have
to work?), so maybe this has been discussed but why would you want to
fit a round peg in a square hole?
If it was only you, Tim, (and the vote you mention in your blog was
invalid), then thanks.
As an aside, what is stopping anybody from doing anything they want with
XML, such as creating a parser that accepts non-well-formed instances?
Isn't Xerces (XNI) doing that now?
best,
-Rob
p.s. I see you are looking for consulting gigs while finding the ideal
job. Personally, I couldn't imagine having a boss again. You say you are
available, but you are expensive. How much do you cost? I am interested
in getting my code/architecture critiqued.
|
