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

RE: experts

• From: Mike.Champion@S...
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:46:11 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 10:55 AM
> To: Marcus Carr
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re: experts
>
> Hence, my suggestion that we consider other approaches to
> design-by-expert.  It doesn't have to mean design-by-moron,
> but it does  require a change in perspective.

I pretty much agree with what you've said in this thread, Simon, but not
sure what it means for how XML specs should be written.  The ideal is
"designed by geniuses so it can be used by morons" or "simple things
should be simple, hard things should be possible."  I think what we
have today is "expert proposes, Bozo disposes."  That is, the W3C,ISO,
OASIS, ebXML, BizTalk, ad infinitum spew out specs, and the truly Bozo-proof
ones will survive the shakeout.  It's not fun living inside the shaker,
but I'm not sure how we can make this period less painful.  Do you?

Perhaps we could more explicitly proclaim "Power to the Bozos ...
if it doesn't work for you, ignore it." But isn't that how the world
works anyway?  Sure, there are some Pointy Haired Bosses who will say
"All the COOL guys in my in-group are using W3C Schemas, and they call
me a wimp for letting you Bozos use RELAX, so I want to see you fully
exploit the Post Schema Validation InfoSet NOW!!!. "  But Father Darwin, or
Adam Smith's invisible hand, or whoever, will send them packing sooner or later.

• Follow-Ups:
  • humility (was RE: experts)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • People like me (was "experts")
    • From: Jonathan Robie <Jonathan.Robie@S...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The Web's Full Potential (Was Re: experts)
• Next by Date: Problem building Microsoft's SAX2Jumpstart
• Previous by thread: Re: experts
• Next by thread: humility (was RE: experts)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread