Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
You are right, Simon, but this is a dangerous position for the W3C to take. What it is incubating is lack of clarity. This lack of clarity about what can and cannot, should and should not be attempted with its technology and specifications results in requests for proposals for systems that are dangerous to field. It results in expectations that cannot be met by reasonable implementors and reasonable effort. It results in a caveat emptor market that favors and in fact, encourages misrepresentation of product capability. This historical trend of trying to make a big splash with 20% of the necessary features while simultaneously disregarding prior work and results, or worse, dismissing it as irrelevant or obsolete will eventually result in catastrophic system failures. Risk and reliability. Risk and reliability. Internet time is the Jethro Bodine approach to fixing your brakes: "I did Ma, that's why we ain't got none." Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] If we all treated the W3C's technology as experimental, their moves might not be seen as problematic. Unfortunately, lots of people don't, and there are plenty of businesses betting their fortune on XML 1.0 and its supporting standards. *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
