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

RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail

• From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@n...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:48:08 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> Since the W3C chooses the terms, recomendation or specification, I use
> their terms for their artifacts.  They probably have something in mind
> for that interpretation which might make a fine contribution to a
> semantic web in a list of "practical intents and purposes"  they test
> to ensure their definition of use.

Do you believe that the adspeak 'previously owned car' is a beneficial
semantic over the common and well known understood 'used car'? Would you
use that term, just because the used car dealership *preferred* the term
'previously owned'?

Sometimes semantic artifacts are intended to *decrease*, not *increase*
comprehension. This is such a case. The *ONLY* reason for the avoidance of
the word 'standard' here is to allow companies to write non-compliant
implementations without getting beat up for it. "That's only a
_recommendation_, not anything as formal as a *standard*. We comply with
the *standards* themselves (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).".

-- 
Benjamin Franz

... with proper design, the features come cheaply. This 
approach is arduous, but continues to succeed.

                                     ---Dennis Ritchie

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
    • From: Paul T <paul@p...>

• References:
  • RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The relentless march of abstraction
• Next by Date: RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
• Previous by thread: RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
• Next by thread: Re: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread