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

RE: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:17:22 -0500
• In-reply-to: <005501c3dbbb$bd509cd0$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>

bob@w... (Bob Wyman) writes:
>My apologies to Walter for using you as an example. You may
>now flame me at will. But, please try to use simple words...

Walter is talking about processes that simply aren't simple.  

"Slap a schema on it and you're done" is easy to say, and horribly
complicated to actually make work.

Walter's a lot harder to figure out, but while it's a tougher learning
curve, it makes a lot more sense in practice, as you cut out
coordination costs and accept that you can't control everything.
Responsibility, aesthetics, and language are integral parts, and their
interactions are non-trivial.

Could Walter's message be simplified?  Maybe.  But I'm not sure it would
mean the same thing. 

I don't mind reading Derrida or Heidegger either - tough going, rich
reward.  Asking for easy is not always the way to get to easy.

• References:
  • RE: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
• Next by Date: Re: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
• Previous by thread: RE: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
• Next by thread: RE: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread