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

Re: Partyin' like it's 1999

• To: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
• Subject: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:57:10 +1000
• Cc: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <e3a5cb2c04102608397313df76@m...>
• Organization: Zenucom Pty Ltd
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206873@h...> <e3a5cb2c04102608397313df76@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040502)

Michael Champion wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:27:05 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len)
><len.bullard@i...> wrote:
>  
>
>> How much code
>>do we want to obsolete so that applications that
>>were nearly done are now codeBits 
>>    
>>
>
>That's one question that needs to be answered (or at least guessed at)
>before doing anything:  how much short term pain would actually be
>caused?  My own guess is that most end user application builders have
>avoided the crufty stuff, whether or not it is legal in the specs. 
>The people complaining at the Sells' conference are the poor suckers
>trying to implement the specs because their customers want 'standards'
>in the abstract but are not clamoring for the nasty bits of the actual
>specs. The purpose of any refactoring would be to cut at the
>inflection points beyond which a given feature causes more complexity
>pain than empirical benefit in the real world.  I grant that will be
>hard to determine!
>
>  
>
>> Why
>>not toss out this whole 'pointy' thing and get
>>back to a clean one pass parse based on proper
>>data definitions, white space, end of lines,
>>and curlies (let's Do C!)?
>>    
>>
>
>Sooner or later someone is going to do just that.   The question is
>whether we want to do selective breeding to keep the specs in synch
>with changing realities or wait for punctuated equilibrium to toss it
>out and start over.
>  
>
i think binary xml is basically going to do this....

rick

>  
>
>>There comes a point where the business execs and
>>the data owners look back and say "good enough"
>>and push back because the costs of reinnovation
>>are restarts in too many places.
>>    
>>
>
>OK, automobiles, television, most home appliances, homebuilding
>technology ... lots of things have been essentially "good enough" for
>decades. I'm trying to think of a computer-related technology that 
>exhibits this (mainframes?  COBOL?).  In the technology industry,
>who's not busy bein' reborn is busy becomin' a low margin commodity.
>
>  
>
>> Are there
>>any non-XML geeks, 
>>    
>>
>
>Maybe not, but if "Developers Hate XML", who will stand up for it when
>its equilibrium gets punctuated?
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>  
>

begin:vcard
fn:Rick  Marshall
n:Marshall;Rick 
email;internet:rjm@z...
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

• References:
  • RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• Next by Date: Can a CDSect be split across entity boundaraies?
• Previous by thread: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by thread: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread