[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: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 22 May 2002 11:05:54 -0400
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B49E@HQ5>
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B49E@HQ5>

On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 10:52, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> We all have passions, causes, reasonable society enhancing 
> agendas.  XML can be part of that, but I believe that even 
> there, saying a thing is good for its own sake is a dangerous 
> assertion of religious zeal, not common sense.  

Is pursuit of technological coherence (never even mind excellence)
religious zeal?  Does every application need to go through an RFC
process with bidding and contracts to be useful?

XML isn't good for its own sake.  Neither is technology.  But making
sure that the technologies we create actually perform as expected
involves a range of activities that may not be consistent with business
agendas.

To say that I'm sick and tired of hearing "everybody's doing it, and
there's money in it" as an excuse for pouring resources into specs that 
have little value when examined outside of dollar-sign glasses is an
understatement.  

It's (long past) time for people interested in the technology to push
back against the people interested in the business of technology, even
if that means biting the hand that feeds us.  XML hype seems to be over
- maybe it's time to get XML's technological house in order instead of
chasing the big bucks.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

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

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