[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]

  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • To: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@A...>,xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
  • Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:42:32 -0600

Only one quibble.  When we boycott products, we are not simply boycotting vendors;
we are boycotting their developers.  This is important.  If a developer cannot for whatever
reason implement the standard, we have a very different problem from "embrace and
extend".  This was at the heart of why we were told XML was created as a subset of
XML and Schemas were needed over DTDs, etc.    Clarity in requirements and
definitions of capabilities must be preferred over fuzzy visions of futures as yet
unknown and potentially unknowable or worse, unusable.     The excuse of Internet
Time once again proves to be the excuse for not having the patience to do it right
the first time.  Beware of "technology adoption" requirements which insist
on colonization as the first rule of adaptation.   

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brennan [mailto:Michael_Brennan@A...]

I think I got a bit irate in some of my postings in response to this, but I was frustrated over people who had swept aside mature, proven XML technologies and decided to implement the "relevant subset" themselves -- and they kept doing it wrong! I found it more expedient to build my own SOAP implementation built atop generic XML technologies, than to waste time with more specialized SOAP libraries that had major deficiencies and interoperability issues because the implementors failed to leverage proven, mature, general XML technologies that were readily available. I think there's some lessons for folks to learn, there

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member