[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Begging the Question (the novel)
hi paul: I didn't mean to degrade this thread into a holy war. It was my novel, and I was just commenting on the progression. Apologies for drifting off into the "big hug" ether..:-) I've sure learned alot in the past few days from this list. When I reread the threads, I bet i'll really know what i learned :-) thanks, lisa Paul Tchistopolskii wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Lisa Rein <lisarein@f...> > > > I'm just jumping in here to make an observation that I think it is > > interesting that Uche "isn't interested in XML Schema", he just uses XML > > Namespaces, and Now Paul "isn't interested in RDF" he just wants XML > > Namespaces to remain holy > > (and to guard the golden dereferencing grail before it falls into the > > wrong hands). > > Correction. ( A lot of ). > > I'm not interested in RDF, I'm not interested in XSD and I'm also not > interested in Namespaces. > > The only thing I'm interested in is not getting yet another de-facto > XML standard. > > Period. > > I wish you re-read the thread from the begginnig ( when it > was "simple question on namespaces"). Especially letters > from Andrew ( who is one of the authors of Namespaces > spec and as usual, as it happens when one of XML gods > starts talking to us, mortals, his words are still most > important part of the thread, I think. I'm not kidding. ) > > I don't want to 'guard the golden dereferencing grail'. > I don't think there is a holy grail at the end of > namespace URI. > > I don't care if tomorrow W3C will decide that URI should > point to RDF. I don't care is tomorrow W3C will decide > that URI should point to XSD. > > I'l not use this binding anyway, because I don't > use kinda similiar and existing DTD and XSL bindings > which are already blessed by W3C. > > I don't care if tomorrow Tim Bray's idea of catalogs > will be blessed by W3C or if *any* other idea > will be blessed by W3C. > > All those games around URIs are orthogonal to my > view on XML so I don't care about *any* solution W3C > will made on that binding. > > I *do* care if such a descision ( whatever it will be ) will > be performed *not* by W3C and because current W3C wording > allows such vendor-driven scenario I'm asking W3C to change > the wording so that Tool X will not gonna happen. > > That's it. I've been in the hell of writing code for > Windows 3.0 platform, I've been in the hell of writing > code for Java 1.0 platform, I don't want another hell > of writing code for vendor-driven SW and who drives > XML DNS - drives the SW. > > I can not say that W3C is producing ideal papers > or APIs, I can not say that W3C process is ideal, > but sofar it is better comparing to some big company > driving the process. > > What is not clear ? > > I'm not looking for 'golden grail' of *any* kind. I'm > too old for such a view on technology. > > I just don't want to get into yet another hell of > vendor-driven web, because it will be harder > for me to compete with them. > > W3C as a competitor is much better than a > big vendor as a competitor. Very simple. > > > But I think everybody is missing a very important point that ALL OF > > THESE TECHNOLOGIES USE XML NAMESPACES. So of course the dereferencing > > issues are relevant across ANY TECHNOLOGY USING XML NAMESPACES. > > Exactly. Yes. It is about Namespaces and only about Namespaces. > To be accurate it is about the neutral wording used by Namespaces > spec explaning the semantics of the namespace name == URI. > > My first letter that started this thread was with the Subject : > "a simple question on namespaces" . > > > and that's why I feel, still, that we can't just hold some kind of a > > moritorium on "how an XML Namespace URI value can be used to dereference > > an actual document" > > .. Why ? It is the core question of the thread ... My answer > is : > > I don't care how, but let say explicitely that that 'how' > should come from W3C *only* > > > Paul Tchistopolskii wrote: > > > > > Really - I don't see what is related to the original topic of this thread. > > > Are you talking about some RDF-based framework ? > > > > > > By the way, why you are talking about RDF ? There is no word > > > RDF in the namespaces doc, there is no sign that those URIs > > > will point to RDF e t.c. If you have discovered some way how to > > > use Namespaces with RDF - I don't understand how it is relevant. > > > document"..and then further clarify that "oh, it's ok for RDF, etc." > > > > <lossofcool> > > ALL OF THE W3C XML STANDARDS USE XML NAMESPACES. WHAT PART OF THAT DO > > YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? ARE WE SUPPOSED TO ADD TO A LIST AT THE END OF THE > > NAMESPACE SPEC EVERY TIME A NEW VOCABULARY COMES OUT OF THE W3C THAT XML > > NAMESPACES APPLY TO? TAKE IT AS A GIVEN. YOU CAN COUNT ON IT. DONE > > DEAL. SURE THING. (JEEZ!) > > </lossofcool> > > Yes, I understand that all of the W3C XML standards use XML > namespaces. Good for them, I think that it is plain silly, but > > THIS HAS NO RELATION TO THIS THREAD ;-) We may > start another holy war, if you like. > > I'l be very happy *not* to enter this "namespaces are good > for you, and BTW - you can not avoid them if using recent > XML standards" . > > 1. They are not good. > 2. I can avoid them. Please don't ask me how can I do that. I can. > For example - not using recent XML standards ;-) Yes, all of them. > > W3C decided to go with Namespaces. Good for them. > > This thread is not about Namespaces in general, but it is > about 'neutral wording' of Namespaces specs which allows > de-facto binding of URIs driven *not* by W3C. > > ( I have a strange feeling that I already wrote this thing .) > > > This kind of attitude kinda frustrates me because it's really an > > outdated perspective to just "not care" about other technologies that > > aren't on your immediate radar in your own little corner of the web > > world (especially when they really are on radar and you are just not > > aware of it). The whole point of the semantic web (and actually the > > good old fashioned traditional web too) is to start connecting all this > > stuff together and to eventually create systems to facilitate these > > connections automatically. > > When I say "I don't care" it usually means that "the issue you are > pointing to is irrelevant to the point I'm making". I just use a bit shorter form. > Sorry if it is really disturbing. In my defence I should say that > using caps instead of reading the original thread could be > considered disturbing as well. > > > We didn't jump topics when we started talking about how RDF might > > dereference a document using XML Namespaces after the discussion about > > how XML Schema might do the same. We're still talking about connecting > > instances of data models to their validating schemas -- be it XML, RDF > > or whatever. > > > It would be one thing if you guys were saying "I don't understand how > > XML Namespaces apply to these other technologies, let's all work > > together and figure this out" but what I'm hearing is "I only care > > about my little corner of the XML Namespace world -- to hell with > > everything else -- but don't you go implementing any of this stuff too > > successfully, too quickly or it's "no fair"...foul ball... > > Hell with RDF, XSD and Namespaces, but not let the > big vendor to take control over the .com .net and .org > domains. > > What is your point? Who are those "you, guys" ? > We are all different here. > > Officials of big companies need one set of things from W3C, > officials of small companies need another set of things from > W3C. Customers usually don't give a [expletive deleted]. > > I'm not talking about something being 'fair' or 'no fair' and > I dont understand your logic at all. Really. > > Either W3C is The Law, or it is not. I see the broken law. > I'm pointing to this law saying : "it is broken. Wanna another > disaster, like it was with XSL in MS IE ?" > > What could be the reaction to my statement? > > Honestly - I don't care. > > I just know that the law is broken and it is now up to W3C to > fix the hole or to leave it as it is now. > > I think its is funny that *me* who came from the country where > the law means "Just Nothing" is trying to explain to *you* > that "The Law" is not about 'fair' or 'no fair' . Not at all. > > > All this schema stuff is so experimental, we really need a collaborative > > free-for-all for a while to figure out how to do things. Telling > > developers not to innovate until a standard materializes that might > > never actually materialize (and in fact has not even been started yet!) > > isn't gonna fly. > > You said "innovation" ? I see a pattern here. ... > > Let me think ... I think I remember - there is the company > which is , you know ... very innovative .... I hardly remember > the name of that company, and I hardly remember any innovation > from that company ( usually they were producing 'improved version 2' > of somebody's else innovation, like most of big comnanies do ) , > ... I just remember the word "innovation" attached to the name of > that company... PR and all that stuff. > > Funny you use this word "inovation". After that PR company > I'm getting very strange feeling when I hear the word "innovation". > Especially when that "innovation" word is used as an excuse for > abusing some law ( W3C specs are laws. Are they? ) > > Who tells developers not to innovate ? Me ???? What is the > particular place in my posting which says that developers > should not innovate ? > > > This stuff has to work together to do anything useful. We're all in > > this together man :-) > > Maybe my 10+ years experience is not typical, but all the situations > in my life when people were talking too much about "team work" > or "team spirit" usually resulted in stealing my money and/or > ideas. > > I mean that when I hear about "working together" this also > clicks on something ... not really good ... > > Let us *work* . And then we'l see. That's the way I see it. > > Rgds.Paul. > > PS. > > By the way : "working together" implies opening W3C archives. > > I hardly understand how can many people work together > with some closed club which pays no respect to the people > who try to help. Oh, no - not again ... I think *this* topic has > been discussed many times and I'd really *hate* this > "how can we work together" to happen on XML-dev list again. > > There are now at least 2 appropriate websites for bashing W3C, > I suggest those who want to discuss all the beauty of working > together with W3C or together with MS or together with some > other big organization are better to start those discussions in the > appropriate place.
|
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
|