• To: 'Bob Foster' <bob@o...>
• Subject: RE: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:01:17 -0500
• Cc: 'Kurt Cagle' <kurt.cagle@g...>, xml-dev@l...

While I applaud the speaker's call to conciseness 
as the realist property of first cause, 
I oppose the nominalist Dogma of Clarity 
as being insufficiently defenestrated.

We assuredly will apply the existentialist  
Pragma of Implementability.  If there 
is no communalist consensus about that, we 
will refer this to the Subcommittee on 
Interoperability and Syntax and adjourn 
to the podicum for scree and trumpets.

Strike 'will'; insert 'shall'.

len


From: Bob Foster [mailto:bob@o...]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Nah.  That's too geeky, too philosophical, Kurt.   Do this
> democratically. Let's vote on technologies we want to remove
> from or include in Web 2.0.   Since we can't vote on products
> (that's not capitalistic), let's vote on Standards.
>  
> Anyone up for voting out XML Schema in favor of RelaxNG?

Sure. While we're up, let's use the RelaxNG specification as an exemplar 
and vote out any W3 specification not as clearly written and concise.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Next by Date: Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Previous by thread: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Next by thread: Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread