[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: experts
Yet it sat there in use for the last five years. Yes, the incompatibilities in the implementations were glaring, the vendors rivalries enormous, all true. Yet it sat there in use for five years and the resistance to change has been incredible. Why? Partly a troll, but partly fact. The pace of mucking with a spec makes it just as unendurable as the work left undone. I also recall the end of the VRML project (much like XML) where a minimal victory was declared and everyone was told to go and implement the left-over parts away. They tried that. The event models are a problem but the simple obvious bits were the incompatible color models. Interaction is important but in a rendering app, the consistency of appearance is critical. So people hammered on that model. Meanwhile, the vendors began to die off. Experts went walkabout. VRMLNextGen became a two encoding project. We had a language in which the original object model was tied directly to the syntax of the file format. People rose up to defend the brackets when they should have been looking at the object model. XML was declared to be the death knell because "everyone" knew a document model couldn't be used for the object model. Few stopped to look at the infoSet and some blithely accepted that two encodings couldn't be harmful. They locked horns on the syntax. Experts told them, uhh, the object model first, brackets later. But hey, the W3C wanted pointy so pointy it was. You are right about the lack of understanding for many of us. It was a learning experience. But I also remember being told that HTML was the "shining moment of clarity" and all of that from those who designed the first object model. XML, "the evil from the east" and so on. IOW, stooges on both sides of the aisle. nyuk-nyuk-nyuk. Competence: how high can you toss the balls when juggling? Things that have multiple standard parents rarely stay simple or on track. The only thing that kept VRML stable was the five year cycle for changes while all of the OTHER specs not yet standards got hacked into some semblance of stability. On this point you are wrong: the VRML spec group was never closed. It has always operated in the open. Some people left [expletive deleted] off, that is true, and some returned for hire or for entertainment, but they never closed the doors. It is the one promise kept. Now, did they keep on remaking the same decisions? no. At certain points, they picked a direction with or without understanding it and went forward. XML was a bear. The DTD wasn't up to the modeling challenges, Schemas weren't done, XPath wasn't done. The DOM event model wasn't done. MPEG was trying to move it into their models complete with patented tech, some wanted to replumb XML (just a DOM away from being gay; SMLs funny), and on and on and on, collision after liaison, expert after standard. And so it went. Meanwhile, VRML97 sat there fat dumb and happy being used for five years. God bless ISO. Interoperability? Heck, we'd just like to have the same capability as the original VRML97 still working, so we rely on the two vendors still standing extensions and all. They are after all, experts. And they both use VRML97: fat, dumb, and happy. We can't have cooperation, negotiation, interoperation, webbiness and so on without a certain reserve about what is possible. Some call that minimalism, some just do the obvious bits and don't need a name or a religion for common sense. OTOH, it is almost certain that the advanced bits won't get done or won't be interoperable when done. Complexity bites. So is simplicity the solution? Sort of. It comes with its own ticket. The truth about the web is that to have interoperability at scale, one becomes content with a certain mediocrity in the applications and incredibly wary of those that proffer simplistic solutions for what are known complex problems. Daring to do less means being able to do less. Trying to do more with less often means taking profit and turning it into customer bribes. When that runs out, the customer becomes the patsy. It becomes drug dealing in the webHood. Last year, web businesses were giving away web services. This year, MP3.COM charges artists for the privilege of being paid for MP3.COM to use their songs, AT&T is charging for being paid for its services (that's right; we pay them to bill us unless we allow them direct access to our bank accounts and give up the ability to inspect bill prior to payment), and submarine patents are being welded to open technology. Why does Microsoft dominate? They don't care unless it ships a million copies. They throw away the rest and if you count on an app on the scrap, you burn with the leftover DNA. It is the cost of lowering the cost. Scale is a key to the record business and the software business, but not the scale of application, the scale of sales. Farmers need large orchards to make minimal profits off seasonal harvests. Otherwise, fruit costs what it costs to grow without migrant labor and heavy pesticides. Organic tastes like industrial; it just rots faster. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
|
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
|