Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
joshuaa@m... (Joshua Allen) writes: >I was a bit more charitable when reading the paper -- I assumed that >the introductory comment about XML "deficiencies" was simply meant to >acknowledge that there is a strain between the two common uses of XML >(as syntax vs. as data) and not to "point a gun". I don't believe this is the time or place to be charitable. For all the brilliant work that follows the opening of that article, the assumptions underlying the project have not a damn thing to do with "the essence of XML" and lead them far afield. I have no concerns with them exchanging whatever information they'd like using angle brackets, even if it hurts them a bit, but I find their arrogance in calling this "the essence of XML" downright breathtaking. Laughter seems like the best response to such foolishness. Unfortunately other people will likely read this and fall into its trap. I guess maybe we can set up "essentialists anonymous" to help them out. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
