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

RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTut

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:51:54 -0500

Of course the question is, will contractually 
obligating myself/company/customer to a standard limit 
my ability to innovate a better specification and 
field a better system?

If you sign on the dotted line, you are generally 
expected to comply.  That is why, IMO, engineers 
and lawyers prefer modular standards.

We get lots of requests for XML support typically 
in the boilerplate RFPs.  They never tell us what 
they want to do with XML.  That makes it easy to 
say yes.  We always say no to XTML because no one 
knows what that is even if we think we know what
they meant.

It's not very smart to normatively cite acronyms.

len

• Prev by Date: Re: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Next by Date: RE: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Previous by thread: TR9503 to XSD
• Next by thread: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread