Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
It illuminates that we are content to argue about things that are obvious given a technology. They believe what they are fed. Feed them the nonsense that well-formedness is all that is needed 24x7x365 for any case and they will quickly reinvent DTDs. Teach them that for a closed case, and a reasonable approximation of a solution for Schroedinger's equation for their system that they cand do that, then they will and it will work until a case breaks that approximation. I don't care that they all agree; I care that if they agree I have a way to check their conformance using simple means. Schemas are a heckuva lot simpler than reading their code. Will it be done in code too, sure. All of the time and for every case; no. Years were spent trying to open these systems and now y'all want to close it all back up, hand it all back to the programmers, and kiss off progress. Ok, be webLuddites. :-) len -----Original Message----- From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...] 10/4/2002 10:20:06 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote: >This is a silly thread. This stuff wasn't invented >yesterday. Well, I've found it quite illuminating! Industries that can't agree on a standard paper form using technology that has been around for 500 years are unlikely to agree on standardized schema using technology that still doesn't interoperate reliably. IMHO It's silly to argue against the proposition that life would be easier (for us nerds anyway) if the damned humans would just use the technology as it was intended. But its equally silly to argue for the proposition that that this is likely to happen anytime soon.
|
