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

Re: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: REST

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:15:18 -0400
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B49C@HQ5>

5/22/2002 9:17:35 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote:

>Tools aren't what we lack.  Applications are what we lack. 
> ... [XML] makes no sense 
>to the CEO out of the box except to say "well, everyone is doing it" and 
>that is precisely the hyped stupidity that got SGML in trouble, object-oriented 
>programming in trouble, AI in trouble and a lot of otherwise valuable but 
>almost failed emerging tech.

I guess that's the answer to my question in a nutshell.  "What's wrong" is that
XML/Web developers and advocates got used to life in the "everyone is doing it, me
too!" era, and we now live in a "I'll buy it it has a substantial short term
velue" era.  

"What is to be done" is that we have to "sell" (literally or figuratively)
the tools by pointing to the successful applications that they built, 
not by appealing to the fearof not being on the Next Big Thing bandwagon.  
That means that we have to justify the XML specs in terms of tangible 
practical benefit to users rather than "wouldn't be cool if we could ..." 
or "we all know that the Right Thing is to ...".

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: R ESTTutorial)
    • From: "Dan Mabbutt" <Seigfried@m...>

• References:
  • RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ANN: REST Tutorial
• Next by Date: RE: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Previous by thread: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Next by thread: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: R ESTTutorial)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread