On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Liam R E Quin
<liam@w3.org> wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 09:18 -0700, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
[...]
> I do want to put one thing to bed: All this Vendor Capitalist Apprentice
> robot parroting of "what's the business case? Huh? Huh?" Most of us work on
> XML tools, at various levels of the stack. I've implemented at one time or
> another dozens of XML specifications. The cost in unnecessary complexity of
> all this work is staggering. For my part, I would love to have a path
> towards simplifying this work in the long term, even if it meant some added
> difficulty in the short term. I can tell you from engagement with users
> that XML and some of its support standards as they are right now really
> introduce inefficiency all over the place. It's not just having to again
> once a week explain why folks are failing to match default namespaced
> elements from XPath and the like. It's all the cruft cases these lead to in
> the code.
>
> So nobody who matters for MicroXML should need some spiffy business case.
Actually you just gave one.
When I asked, what is the business case for the work, that's exactly the
sort of answer I wanted - who will benefit and how and why - and the
reason for asking is that it determines the focus of the work, and gives
a way to measure if you're succeeding.
I suspect you must have been the most recent person to mention that, since Dave also remembered it with your name tag, but I actually had no recollection of who had been saying it. I just remember its having come up several times recently, and I had the impression that it had been an expression of "stop energy."
