[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
[Recent Entries]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: breaking up?
- From: Guy Murphy <guy-murphy@e...>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,Mike.Champion@S..., xml-dev@l...
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 15:59:21 +0100
Title:
Anybody who went through the debacle of doing web
design (as opposed to web development) for v4 of IE/NS wouldn't simply
dismiss the desire for agreed upon standards as a need to belong, or a need to
dominate... a lot of Web designers would emphasise a need to go home and spend
time out of the workplace.
There was blood all over the place during that
bowser war... one of the reasons why standards suddenly became so popular among
a section of the audience.
Its easy to forget, and when we do there'll be
blood all over the place again.
Cheers
Guy.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 3:43
PM
Subject: RE: breaking up?
That
worked for the SGML implementors who didn't need the options. The
inventor of SGML once told me he was surprised more didn't do
that. The
trick is selling it. If the web has demonstrated anything,
though, it convinces
me
that the need to belong followed by the need to dominate are so
ingrained
in
mammals as to be instinct. We lead by plausible logic then
dominate
by
plausible promises. In truth, the future is what you are willing to
fight for and that is why the instinct is to belong first. You
have to make it
happen and making it happen means choosing who chooses
choices.
No
one owns the intellectual property and it takes deep pockets to
fight for copyrights and trademarks. Avoid the latter, use the
former
as
you see fit. Interoperability like religion is "a smile on a
dog".
Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah
bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
> From: Michael Brennan
[mailto:Michael_Brennan@a...] > > Too bad we can't go back and start
over with the benefit of hindsight.
Why can't we? SOMEBODY is going
to do this SOMEDAY ... why not us, now?
You don't need a new standards body or
sanctioned working group to document an XML subset (or SGML profile, if you
want) that simply ignores the stuff that doesn't carry its weight.
"Just say no" to defaulted attributes, ambiguous namespaces, validating with
schema languges that are harder to use than to write procedural business
logic, and so on. Even if implementers can't "go back and start over",
users can ignore that which doesn't help them solve real problems, authors
and consultants can recommend that which does work, purchases can be made on
the basis of what really works, etc.
If the folks "leading the web to its
full potential" via the PSVI-oriented specs turn around in a couple of years
and discover that no one is following, why is that a problem for the rest of
us? Conversely, if they *do* sort it all out and make it work in the
real world someday, what have we lost by letting them do the bleeding on the
bleeding edge?
|
|
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
RSS 2.0 |
|
Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats,
enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.
|
Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website.
they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please
click here.
|
|