Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb
 I think Ed is in the real world. The article is a symptom of the growing frustration and fatigue with all of the "new and different" that is promoted before the last thing gets firmly established. The specs keep churning based on the minimal victories that don't complete the job, then the tools churn. Those of us who as I said are Thralls and have to wait until post-beta to begin our own work are forever waiting. Some XML ambitions exceed what the SGMLers thought were reasonable applications of markup. Web Services are at the lunatic fringe of what we described for markup in the eighties and early nineties, so nothing there is surprising or particularly new other than they are now mainstream. The problem issues of widely distributed cooperative systems is coordination, the reason we looked into CASE tools, simulation and Hytime for synchronization and scheduling concepts for workflow in hypermedia. There are problems object-concepts don't solve. It may be possible that web services with AI components can be part of that solution, at least where the noise is mammal noise. So the notion that XML isn't being developed intelligently is a little harsh, but I understand. To appeal to the past, particularly the way the web has come about, is not that appealing. Head long rush, personalities, minimal victories, all of this is too much the thinking of one-off systems. For all the critique of ISO, those five year cycles served to stabilize all of the dense and insanely multi-dimensional processes that have to converge to create safe interoperable systems. Otherwise, we will have as predicted, the occasional catastrophe and we have only luck to prevent it being in very sensitive junctions. Too many of the early web developers overlooked the problems of cultural and individual predilections that have lead to so many current problems. The problem is as it has always been, to compete and comply. Standards are valuable, but they should be based on experience with real systems, not experimentation. That is why I speak of balance of powers among the organizations that require, propose and govern. XML is just SGML. We know how this works and we know where the limits are. I don't have as many problems with that (I can write Schemas, I can use namespaces, and I know what they are good for), but I worry everyday about complexity merging with the unknown unknowns. I only fume when I see the simplistic merge with the all too well known and that creates the kinds of events we are seeing in the use and misuse of the Internet. The chickens do come home to roost. The good news if you want to consider it that: the tool betas look more solid and as the choices are made and the developers move on to the next stage of making the car love opera, we will finally get the best seats. One can only hope they are next to someone who doesn't smell funny. There are limits. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Michael Brennan [mailto:Michael_Brennan@a...] I've really grown weary of these sorts of articles. Web services is over-hyped and over-marketed, therefore it is just a vacuous passing fad. Interesting logic. Toothpaste is over-hyped and over-marketed, too. Does that mean that toothpaste is just a passing fad? I have to laugh at someone who dismisses web services as a meaningless passing fad, then goes on to share his enthusiasm for the Semantic Web. All I can think is it must be nice to not have to live in the real world. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
