Re: [xml-dev] Do you enjoy neighborhoods where every house looksthe same

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

On 8/28/13 9:58 AM, Bill Kearney wrote:
> There's nothing limiting of the design that standardized components
> brings to the process.  Rather those help eliminate time wasted on
> infrastructure details, freeing that up for customization of
> human-facing aspects.  It would be insane to have to drill down into the
> nitty-gritty of plumbing pipe diameters, wire gauges or dimensional
> aspects of lumber and sheet materials.

At what level does the standardization cease?  Pipe diameters are 
standardized, as are threads.  But if pipe length was standardized, 
you'd have some incredibly ugly looking houses or weirdly misplaced 
fixtures.  Life without ways to cut is pretty miserable.

Markup itself is standardization - syntax standardization.  Think of it 
as setting the gauges, diameters, and threads.

Markup language standardization ranges from defining entire assembly 
lines to smaller pieces more like the electrical box I mentioned.  Those 
come with various benefits and costs.

> Now, does the ease with which standardized materials can be obtained
> allow for blandness?  Of course it does.  But this is true for just
> about EVERYTHING on the planet!  Should we rail pointlessly about this
> as some sort of evil?  No, of course not.  Better time can be spent on
> building upon those basic elements to create the uniqueness a situation
> requires.  The trick is in coming to terms with just how much uniqueness
> any given situation actually requires.  Most don't.  This is a reality
> those enamored of 'designing' often ignore.

And a reality that those enamored of standardization can't see past. 
You're not "calling bullshit".  You're just declaring that your 
priorities should be blessed.

I say no.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/