Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: ??? (was RE: A simple guy with a simple problem)
 At 03:47 PM 3/14/01 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >No. Simple is good. Too simple for >safety is bad. Knowing which is which >is the trick. I think I'm getting tired of suggestions that we keep selling rope to people who may or may not hang themselves accidentally. We're not talking safety features here, I don't think. At best, we're selling doodads and gizmos which need warning labels. >DTDs? Schemas? How do you know when >what is simple for you is too simple >for the next guy? How do you know >that what Henry proposes isn't precisely >what is needed for that guy to get >his job done? If specs were designed to meet the needs of _everyone_, we wouldn't ever get specs. Your mythical 'next guy' seems to me like a justification for never-ending feature addition, not a recipe for successful specs. >We can't treat XML >spec work as an XP programming >exercise. There isn't enough >room in front of the screen for >everyone involved to sit down and >write the unit tests. There's lots and lots of room for everyone to sit down in front of their own screen and write their own tests and do what works for them, without concern for the 'next guy' over who might need a lot of extra features to make his project work. Do you really hate iterative development so much that you want to inflict top-down design on everyone? Geez... >Daring to do less is still a dare. As is daring to do more, or daring to do nothing. Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly and Associates XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books 
|
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
|
|||||||||
