Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Then you should like the InfoSet since it threw off the years, isn't as rigorous as you think it should be, and certainly seems to be making you unhappy. What you say about reinvention and throwing things away, etc. all certainly does look familiar. One question: Can you do it better? Remember, the infoSet is simpler now than it would have been using groves. Will your attempt to complete it make it simpler or add more of the same, or start over, or....? Programmers who must ship running code in the next release cycle want to know. Len http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] I'd like to suggest that XML is very much an effort to throw off 'years of wrestling with the problems of complete and rigorous definitions of markup languages' and that reinvention of the wheel with what Paul Prescod termed the 'simplicity vector' is necessary as part of that project. It may not make the original inventors happy, and it's a lot of work, but "Build one, or two, or three" to throw away is hardly unusual in this industry. What was it Schumpeter talked about as the engine of growth? Creative destruction?
|
