[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 16:33, Henrik Martensson wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 01:45, Rick Marshall wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > the other lesson remains that standards that codify practice are much
> > more useful than standards that try to drive practice. simply because
> > codifying practice is codifying what works. the rest is really just
> > polemics.....
> > <snip>>
>
<snip/>
> Personally I believe that there should be two components to standards
> and recommendations: they must have a theoretical framework, and the
> theory must have been tested in practise and proven sound. (I am very
> much in favour of XML recommendations being accompanied by reference
> implementations whenever possible. If the people who put the
> recommendation together can't implement it, then who can? If it is too
> expensive and time consuming for them to do it, then maybe the
> recommendation is too complex, or simply not useful enough.)
no doubt you have read enough of my opinions to know that i agree in
general with this sentiment :)
in fact there's very little about modern software development
technologies that i like or agree with. and you have hinted at some of
the problems.
personally i'm struggling with the the whole ws thing. i'm starting to
get a lot of productivity from merging xml into existing practices, but
ws is a long way off. partly i might add, because like many others i've
got working distributed computing systems (have for many, many years)
and it's hard to see what advantage ws will give me.
even more difficult is the whole ebxml effort. i don't think i'll live
long enough to see it implemented widely. it took decades to get edi
working and it wasn't a technology issue.
rick
>
> /Henrik
>
|
