Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
On Feb 16, 2008, at 03:49, Elliotte Harold wrote: > I didn't like that, but this is just beyond the pale. If this goes > through, I suspect I will completely lose faith in the W3C as a > reliable and honest maintainer of standards. Frankly, if we can't > rely on the stability of the base specs, then I think it may be > time to give up on XML (and the W3C) completely. :-( The bottom line is this: it doesn't really matter. Or rather, of course specifications have to be reliable over time, but they certainly do not need to be perfectly reliable — just reliable enough to be trustable by pragmatic companies. You quote with righteous outrage the introduction of the namespace for xmlns, so let's look into it. Where are the big horror stories about things that fall over due to the introduced incompatibility? Where are the scary millions of dollars of estimated loss to the industry? Did we get any Céline Dion karaoke out of it? No. Only academic pundits cared then, and even amongst those most have forgotten today. That W3C can tell the difference between Platonic immutability and pragmatic stability is precisely what maintains my continued trust in their stewardship of XML, and ultimately in XML itself. To quote Liam: XML does not moo at taxis. It is not sacred. -- Robin Berjon ........................................................................ "I think there could really be no upper limit in the length, width or depth of a blueberry mojito. If God had meant us to drink them in piddling little glasses, he wouldn’t have made life so bloody vexing." -- Caitlin Moran
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format