Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote: > What indeed? Perhaps the cost of rebuilding the parsers because > of a bit of paranoia about where they will be used, feature-envy, > whatever. It is like flood-mitigation: many residents don't like > to pay for the mistakes of real estate developers twenty years after > they take the profits because the original land surveys lied about the > history of the property and the likelihood of flooding. The needs of the many outweigh the "oh crap, I have to maintain my software" complaints of the few. I'd say a thousand or so programmers updating (not rewriting) their parsers to support blueberry is a small price to pay for the uncountable who will benefit from it in the future. > >The last thing anyone should want to do is fragment XML, because it > >defeats the overwhelming benefit of XML, that being the ability to > >interchange data in a brain-dead easy fashion. > > But it has failed. Thus Blueberry. Exactly... So we fix it, and help to further avoid future problems. > >The last thing I want to > >hear anyone say is that it's perfectly ok to have an incompatible custom > >implementation of XML. I think we've seen enough history of splintered > >standards turning our lives into living hells. > > You are living in Hell? Do you have flooding there too? Phoenix, AZ is Earthbound version of hell, and yeah, we have flooding during the monsoon. > The most I am daring is that this is a problem best solved > in SGML where the solution is both legal and standard. It seems that > you are mistaking XML with a standard. It isn't. It is a product of > the W3C Consortium that depends on a legitimate relationship with the > original The W3C isn't a standards body? Could have fooled me: http://xmlhack.com/read.php?item=1174 -- Tom
|
