Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
That's why some people are and have always been "sensitive" when the term "standard" is applied to W3C specifications. The word pollution started here in XML and if we are now sickened by it, we have only ourselves to slap around for that. We don't have to be mean about it, but those who write a lot for media about the subject should be scrupulous about these terms and not wave them off as insignificant *crap*. Knowing that someday the shoe on the other foot may rest deeply in *crap* the bear leaves, is a sign of savvy. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Edd Dumbill [mailto:edd@u...] Thank you for saying "initiatives" and not standards. I'm still reeling with nausea from hearing things like UDDI described as "standards" last week at XML DevCon London. All credit to David Turner of Microsoft who showed a slide displaying which specifications in the "web services" arena were stable, in progress or bluesky. There was one box marked as stable. XML 1.0.
|
