• From: Peter Flynn <peter@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:40:27 +0100

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Rob McDougall wrote:
> <rant>
[...]
> We have to stop shaking our fingers at IBM and start figuring out the best
> way to fix the situation.  I don't think making IBM, all the vendors who
> write software for IBM systems and all the customers who bought IBM hardware
> change the way they write software is the right answer.
> </rant>

Quite so, although I suspect many people would disagree with you.

But if there is a need for XML to change instead, let it not be treated 
as if we were fixing a bug in XML just because Big Blue snaps its fingers. 
I'm sure they didn't do anything of the sort. 

If their users are being left out of XML for the want of
a small fix, make it so. If on the other hand it's going
to cause terminal disruption to millions of existing XML
systems, then perhaps not.

It may only be image, but these sensitivities run deep among
users, especially those whose fingers have been bitten before,
and it's always important to consider very carefully how to
present proposed changes like this.

///Peter

• References:
  • RE: XML Blueberry
    • From: Rob McDougall <RMcDouga@J...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Newbie
• Next by Date: Re: XML Linking 1.0 and XML Base become W3C Recommendations
• Previous by thread: RE: XML Blueberry
• Next by thread: more tools tested on "XHTML 1.1 with SVG and MathML DTD" (XML isn 'tsimple)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread