Re: [xml-dev] GPL and XML and Schemas

[Tei <oscar.vives@gmail.com>]

OFF-TOPIC

Artistic people and non-tecnical have fears to "lost his identity" and
"merge with the hive-mind".

We, the tecnical guys, have no problems with things author-less like
the Wikipedia, where you can be the author of a article, but being the
author means nothing, and can be unreacheable before 500 edits. ( I
know because I am the author of "God" on the spanish wikipedia.).

XML is <blink>not</blink> a programming lenguaje, so I think on this
mail list are more readers than will like "Creative Commons" alike
licenses than normal GPL-alike ones. Theres also the thing that most
FOSS licenses are about code, while most CC seems designed for
artwork, and XML is <blink>not</blink> artwork.

People that are somewhat interested about the topic but dont feel too
GPL alike minded, sould read and pick a CC license instead.  I think
the original author of this thread can be one, because he seems to
"dont like"/"dont understand" the GPL.

Theres a good reason to use "any" license. Theres no "Public Domain"
on Europe. If you want to make something "Public Domain" and make it
work that way on Europe, you may be served better with a CC license.
The CC guys are also very active and nice, and are working about the
legal ins-outs of FOSS licenses. I am proud of these guys efforts :D

Anyway you will not impress Debian girls with your CC license. It
takes the raw power of GPL to impress debian girls.
I would love everybody releasing his code as GPL, but I admit not all
people fit on one license, and this why we have a few more

----------------------


HTML is "open" and "non-extensible".
XUL and XAML is "closed" and "extensible". Closed mean with borders,
is a bounded problem, while extensible mean you can create new
widgets, new words.
I bet my hat that XAML will take the world by storm and will be the
single most sucesfull windows technology ever.

Anyway seems that XUL have already failed:
 - Is not a standard, is not even trying to pretend beind one. Is not
even pretending beind compatible with himself. Theres not XUL, only
data :I
 - XUL is not a Microsoft product. While XUL is amazing cool, theres
not ads banners about the coolness, funny flash videos and usefull GUI
editors.

XAML can continue where XUL whas dead:
 - Will be a Microsoft product. So will be there books about XAML, ads
and flash banners.
 - Will be integrated on Visual Studio.

I have no idea why Microsoft is not pimping more XAML everywhere, and
inside this mail list. Because is a very good idea, and will make
programming re-targeteable from Desktop to Web, from Web to desktop,
merging both areas nowdays divided, etc.
People will love XAML and will ignore the fact Firefox or Thunderbid
are XUL app :(

Of course, Microsoft can make XAML unsexy. Is posible, It only takes a
poor XAML generator engine for Visual Studio, that create soo
unreadable code, that XAML become yet another not-human-readable file.
A "binary file" with XML sintax.

This is posible. I know the old versions of Frontpage (2.0?) generated
useable code. Somewhat Geocities alike code, but useable. But next
versions make horrible unsueable code, so bad code seems generated by
Word. (Maybe whas Microsoft tryiing to say something here? Or whas the
code generator of Word replacing the one on Frontpage to make a huge
joke?). I see maybe Microsoft will ruin XAML with code soo complex no
one will use it.
Is pretty sad, because on XUL you can directly write interfaces with
code. Is much easier than HTML because HTML need tons of code to make
a interface user-useable. You can't really place HTML 3.0 on users
face, because is years light away to whatever nowdays we use. Don't
even looks right. While vanilla XUL interfaces just looks right, on a
"Ubuntu" way, and are themes like the native OS.  On XP xul looks like
a XP app, on Gnome looks like a Gnome app. Always cool, always easy..
but not a standard, but a hack  :-(((((

Why!? .. oh lord. We have that tag soup with broken css HTML is, and
not a useable XHTML alike lang to work for these people that a
"Closed-Extensible" promise.
Or maybe XHTML is the XHTML of XHTML?, I hope soo.  The XML on XHTML
may change how people work with HTML to add some programming features
inside authoring, for good.

--Tei