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

RE: loosely and tightly coupled systems and type annota tion

• To: 'Marcus Carr' <mcarr@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: loosely and tightly coupled systems and type annota tion
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 14:35:42 -0500

I realize that, but I've never been able to 
find a way to stop a stampeding herd.  If it 
is following a leader, then at least that 
is the person who's direction can be changed.

The W3C has a Director.  At various times, I 
have come down hard on that position, but an 
honest fellow holds it.  Start there.  

But keep that sig post of your's in mind too. 
Overengineered and overrequired aren't the 
same thing.  Consider that "blind interoperability" 
of a complex system is a hefty order.   First, 
why has it become complex? Skip the political 
reasons; we know about ambition and marketing. 
What technical requirements have lead to the 
complex morass of interlocking specifications?

People keep telling me to read Wolfram's new 
book and I should.  On the other hand, I think 
we know a lot about this already.  Simple 
systems that feedback into their own systems 
for modifying themselves tend to become 
complex and brittle.  

What jobs would be impossible without 
strongly-typed XML applications?  What 
would require merely another technology? 
How many of those jobs are we already 
doing without strongly-typed XML applications?

Sure, "SGML IS HARD" was just propaganda 
and it still is.  But something that really 
is hard won't fare much better.  Stew left 
to stew goes bad fast.

len

From: Marcus Carr [mailto:mcarr@a...]

Technical blunder as it may be, there is no question that the existence 
of the other bits and pieces can and will lead those not brave or 
experienced enough into a morass of over-engineering.

Remember the "SGML is too hard" mantra of a few years ago? Despite the 
protestations of those of us who were using SGML at the time, it caught 
on like wildfire. Because it was true? No, because it was "the message". 
Well the message now is that everything fits together, and that a tidy 
implementation follows the sanctioned path. Of course the add-ons are 
really optional, but how do new developers (or anyone else) know when to 
stop or divert? Nobody ever gets fired for following the W3C...

Never mind what's right - it's more important to think about what the 
developer community may be lead into believing. I'm with Simon - all is 
not well.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
        - Einstein

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: loosely and tightly coupled systems and type annota tion
    • From: Marcus Carr <mcarr@a...>
  • Tokenizer question
    • From: "zhengyu" <zhengyu@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: (newbie) DTD question
• Next by Date: Tokenizer question
• Previous by thread: RE: loosely and tightly coupled systems and type annota tion
• Next by thread: Tokenizer question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread