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

Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedsp

• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:45:56 -0700

>     Are acts of "civil disobedience" against "needlessly complicated
> and confusing" specs a Good Thing because they point us in the right
> direction or a Bad Thing because they cause chaos?

Is that really what's going on, though?   Choose (a) or (b):

    An XML application is an application which ___ be written
    using a fully conformant general purpose XML processor.
        (a) may
        (b) must

The generically testable parts of the XML spec relate to what
an XML processor does.  But I don't think there's a requirement
there that all applications _must_ use one; that's only an "assumed"
scenario, according to para 3 of section 1.

Hmm ... SGML-is-to-XML as XML-is-to-{disobedient-stuff}.

I guess that puts me firmly in the "grey" camp:  disobedience
itself is neither good nor bad.  Good/Bad is an ethical issue,
not a question of law; we have plenty of bad laws.  (And a
recent rush to create lots more "to fight terror", sigh.)

- Dave

p.s. Though I'm curious why the original question equated
     "bad" and "chaos".  Seems to me that diversity is healthy,
     it's monoculture which is bad!  :)

• References:
  • Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Adobe XMP?
• Next by Date: Re: Unique values in XML documents
• Previous by thread: Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
• Next by thread: Cocoon-Question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread