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

RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensib

• To: 'Dare Obasanjo' <dareo@m...>, Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible? (WAS RE: Paypal))
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:45:36 -0500
• Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...

I'll try to keep that in mind.

By now if you are paying attention, you've 
begun to discern that Microsoft, with a closed 
code base and EULA policies, could be at a disadvantage 
in a system of federated code servers using vetted 
and warrantied code that must conform and comply 
to royalty-free standards.  The open source 
community is in a better position, but would 
have to step up to warranties and more complete 
source control and object models for languages 
that have behavioral fidelity requirements.   

Speculation:  The end result could be a 
breaking up of the Microsoft monopoly on 
essential facilities for web applications 
by market forces, not legal forces.  MS 
can pay enough lawyers to defend the monopoly. 
Can MS step up to a fair fight based on 
quality of code?  Will it guarantee it? 
Or will it take the tactic some think 
so unlikely as to be ludicrous:  open 
its code base for shared development 
and warranty the standard?

It could happen.  MS got the monopoly because 
the environment enabled that and the competitors 
in the niche weren't very adaptive or resilient. 
When an environment changes, the forces that 
kept one competitor dominant can eliminate it 
quickly should it prove to be too specialized. 
Food for thought in Redmond.

Those questions aside, we are drifting too 
far into possible effects of symbol grounding and 
away from the means, which are hopefully, 
what developers are interested in.  So 
far, examples of namespace grounding have 
been provided, and thanks to Alaric, some potential 
means to work within a standard browser framework 
have been suggested.  You replied with comments 
on the Parallel and Embedded models. That is on topic. 
In other words, it isn't as you started out saying, 
impossible or technically undoable.  We may find 
out it is difficult to manage or maybe not. URIs 
have proven to be remarkably adaptible means.

len

From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...]

As long as you don't clutter up the list with offtopic screeds it doesn't
matter which it is. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really E xtensible? (WAS RE: Paypal))
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Paypal
• Next by Date: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Previous by thread: RE: Paypal
• Next by thread: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really E xtensible? (WAS RE: Paypal))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread