Re: [xml-dev] Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?

[Robin Berjon <robin@joost.com>]

On Feb 16, 2008, at 03:49, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> I didn't like that, but this is just beyond the pale. If this goes  
> through, I suspect I will completely lose faith in the W3C as a  
> reliable and honest maintainer of standards. Frankly, if we can't  
> rely on the stability of the base specs, then  I think it may be  
> time to give up on XML (and the W3C) completely. :-(

The bottom line is this: it doesn't really matter. Or rather, of  
course specifications have to be reliable over time, but they  
certainly do not need to be perfectly reliable — just reliable enough  
to be trustable by pragmatic companies.

You quote with righteous outrage the introduction of the namespace  
for xmlns, so let's look into it. Where are the big horror stories  
about things that fall over due to the introduced incompatibility?  
Where are the scary millions of dollars of estimated loss to the  
industry? Did we get any Céline Dion karaoke out of it?

No. Only academic pundits cared then, and even amongst those most  
have forgotten today. That W3C can tell the difference between  
Platonic immutability and pragmatic stability is precisely what  
maintains my continued trust in their stewardship of XML, and  
ultimately in XML itself.

To quote Liam: XML does not moo at taxis. It is not sacred.

--
Robin Berjon
........................................................................
"I think there could really be no upper limit in the length, width or
  depth of a blueberry mojito. If God had meant us to drink them in
  piddling little glasses, he wouldn’t have made life so bloody vexing."
                         -- Caitlin Moran