Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Champion wrote:
> Hmmm. If half a community is saying a spec is good and the other half
> isn't, perhaps they are two communities, one with a use for the spec
> and the other without?
The people who don't need a spec tend to ignore it. For instance, I
pretty much ignore the whole RDF/SemWeb space. If it works someday,
great. If not it doesn't seem likely to get in my way. I can't be
bothered enough to comment on the specs in any major way, aside from
trivial details I might happen to notice almost by accident.
The real resistance comes from developers who want
schemas/namespaces/object models/etc. but don't want the particular
forms the W3C is proposing to force down their throats.
> The web services specs or the semantic web
> specs are obvious examples of those that serve the needs of a subset
> of the "XML community" but are irrelevant (and somewhat distatesful)
> to other subsets.
That's another good example, but I think what's happening there is that
everyone wants some sort of general web service ability. However not
everyone wants SOAP, remote procedure calls, a castrated XML syntax, and
an incredibly baroque stack of specifications layered on top of each
other. I don't recall a lot of wailing about web services from people
doing Biblical analysis, publishing, and other non-Webapp applications
of XML (well maybe a little when the subject of binaries came up). The
real objections to SOAP and its spawn came from people who were
developing we applications but in concert with HTTP and XML instead of
in opposition to it.
Elliotte Rusty Harold firstname.lastname@example.org
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!