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

RE: Re: Silly indemnity FUD

• To: 'Uche Ogbuji' <uche.ogbuji@f...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Re: Silly indemnity FUD
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:34:26 -0500

From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...]

>My annoyance is very simple: I haven't googled, but I don't think I
remember 
>hearing you ever mention "indemnity" in this forum before about a month
ago.  

It never came up before.  Possibly like others, I blithely assumed that 
other companies stepped up to the same risks we do and handled them 
by similar means.  Silly me.  Then to inquire if XML facilities could 
offer some hope of at least caging the dragons, that is sooo off 
topic.  Silly me again.  Symbols have the meaning we give them. 
So far so good.  Maybe those schemas should be more meaningful. 
Maybe the namespace identifiers inherited from the committees 
that write them can be more meaningful.  Maybe the processes 
by which standards are written should reflect the measure of 
risk implementors must undertake.  Maybe if the XML applications 
came, as some do, with object models that enable interoperation 
instead of trusting bits on the wire that are meaningless to 
do what they can't do, warranty interoperation, things would be 
better.  On the other hand, maybe we should just leave all of 
that to chance.  So far, that is what many have been doing, not all. 
I think we could do better, but maybe not.  It takes agreement 
to make a change, or force.  I am a believer in inventing the future, 
not suffering it.  Silly me.

>> There are no semantics in markup except what 
>> we put there in the running code.  It is the 
>> relationship of the markup and what it can 
>> provide as proof and the running code which 
>> is indemnified on its own merit that we 
>> should explore.  Perhaps we will discover 
>> that there are ways and means to manage the 
>> risks in common and by more honorable means 
>> than EULA and GPL.

>Wow.  Far out.  Since I can't make any sense at all of this, I think that's
my 
>cue to step out of the discussion.

Ok.  There may be solutions.  We may be a part of them.  Or not.

len

• Prev by Date: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Extensible?
• Next by Date: RE: Re: Silly indemnity FUD
• Previous by thread: Escaping XML? Flattening the parse tree?
• Next by thread: RE: Re: Silly indemnity FUD
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread