[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail

• From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@n...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:28:58 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Sean B. Palmer wrote:

> > Either way - it's complete nonsense. By any generally accepted
> > use of the word 'standard', the W3C specs *ARE* standards.
> 
> No! They are most certainly "recommendations" - you're not breaking
> any rules (even W3C ones) if you don't use them, and in fact you can
> usually modify them for your own purposes. The W3C simply *recommends*
> that you use their specifications, it doesn't force you... but that
> recommendation is so strong that people often see them as standards.

No one *FORCES* me to comply with the IETF's RFCs (Request For Comments,
anyone? More political cover for its originating era...), either. (That
would be treading on the ground of *law*, not standards, BTW - and perhaps
that is what you believe 'a standard' is - a standard with the force of
the legal system behind it via trademark or other IP based enforcement
mechanism. If so, you are mistaken.).

I'm sorry. It's a duck. Political cover for people who choose not to
*conform* to standards while claiming to support them isn't a good reason
to twist the language. Commonality of usage of terms is a *fundamental*
basis for communication. Down the road of 'a word means precisely what I
want it to mean, neither more nor less' lays Alice. What happens when *I*
redefine the word 'recommendation' to mean 'to go down the rabbit hole'?

Somehow I am reminded of my (years in the past) Philosophy 121 Informal
Logic class and the people (mostly political science majors) who actaully
could not see the difference between a *logially valid* argument and a
*convincing* argument. I suspect they went on to become the people who
created 'Lite' (*NOT* 'Light', which has a legally precise meaning) beer.

> Also, there is much to be gained if everyone follows the same
> specifications. If the W3C recommends it, then many thousands of
> developers recommend it also, so why not use it?

You just defined, by usage, the word 'standard'.

-- 
Benjamin Franz

... with proper design, the features come cheaply. This 
approach is arduous, but continues to succeed.

                                     ---Dennis Ritchie

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
    • From: Matt Sergeant <matt@s...>
  • Re: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
    • From: "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
    • From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
• Next by Date: Re: Is whitespace within general entities ignorable?
• Previous by thread: Re: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
• Next by thread: Re: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread