[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
[Recent Entries]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: SGML default attributes.
- From: Steve Newcomb <srn@coolheads.com>
- To: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w3.org>, xml-dev@l...
- Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 09:48:52 -0400
On 05/07/2016 09:50 PM, Liam R. E. Quin wrote:
> There were good and well-thought-out aspects to FPIs and a
single glaring irreconcilable problem that made them useless -
resolving them (in the 1980s and 1990s) involved spending money,
sending faxes or US Mail, transcribing data.
I think this point is questionable in two ways. (1) Getting,
keeping, and transferring an internet domain name only quite
recently became (almost) free of the data transcription chores. (2)
As far as I know, it still costs money -- every year -- to keep an
internet domain name.
> But keeping public identifiers turned out to make it harder, in
the long run, to bring AFs with us, not technically but culturally,
since the concept of architectural forms doesn't depend on a specfic
syntax.
The goal of putting SGML on the Web was at odds with defining a
clean, decentralized representation for information, because of the
need to accommodate legacy architectures.
Quite right. The legacy data belonged to others. Their cultures
were not our culture. We, the W3C, were going to be the hegemon of
the Web, with secret, members-only meetings, no public records of
decision-making, and a brilliant strategy that, in combination with
a lax U.S. Justice Department, made the Sherman Antitrust Act
entirely irrelevant to the Web. And all you legacy workers in the
field? You're either with us on all of that, and you're big enough
to pay the membership fees and send your employees to the private
meetings to collude with the employees of other such big players, or
you will have no influence -- unless, of course, you agree to the
secrecy and you turn out to contribute something that the
big players turn out to like, uh, I mean, the Director turns out to
like. Who will represent the public's interest, you ask? Well...
we're practical, worldly, well-intentioned men, and what's good for
us is, ipso facto, good for the public. Why, before we came along,
the industry was paralyzed for years!
To my astonishment and delight, in some ways it has worked out
incredibly well, the good far outweighs the bad, and the W3C people
deserve huge credit. It could have been so much worse, and it has
been anything but easy. Still, it is hard for me to agree that, in
view of all that has been accomplished, the loss of HyTime is no
more than a spot on the record.
I think we'll be waiting a long time for anything like
"Architectural Forms" and "Universes of Identification With
Permanent Teeth" to emerge from W3C. Such ideas are far too
progressive, disruptive, and regulatory to be embraced by
capitalists, or by any sort of Establishment, really. As
Wittgenstein famously said, "To imagine a language is to imagine a
form of life." After you've imagined a form of life, or even taken
a tour of it, it's hard to feel that it's really so remote, so
other, so "not us".
Steve
|
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|
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.
|
|