Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tim Bray wrote: > See http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/01/16/draconianism and > http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/01/16/DraconianHistory - > doesn't it just make your eyes misty? -Tim > I wonder if the large number of stupid (but successful) application developers like me would have wanted to tackle a datasource that could be just about anything. The majority of my users don't know they are using XML, but I definitely like the fact that when my app creates something broken I clearly know it. Otherwise, my bugs would have children, grandchildren, ad infinitem; tracing their ancestry would be such a pain. It is such a simple thing to provide a well-formed instance that I don't understand the issue. It is not like every instance *has* to be validated against some XML Schema (or whatever). It makes things much simpler for me so I can provide UIs to users who could care less about XML. I have not followed the "Postel's Law" thread (dang, don't you guys have to work?), so maybe this has been discussed but why would you want to fit a round peg in a square hole? If it was only you, Tim, (and the vote you mention in your blog was invalid), then thanks. As an aside, what is stopping anybody from doing anything they want with XML, such as creating a parser that accepts non-well-formed instances? Isn't Xerces (XNI) doing that now? best, -Rob p.s. I see you are looking for consulting gigs while finding the ideal job. Personally, I couldn't imagine having a boss again. You say you are available, but you are expensive. How much do you cost? I am interested in getting my code/architecture critiqued.
|
