Subject: Re: XML as disruption

From: Eric Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:00:11 -0400

Simon,

The IETF general list may not be the best venue for advocacy pieces written
for non-specialists. The characterization of Keith Moore's and Franklin
Reynold's works ("Substrate" and "CC/PP", resp.) are not substantive and
in my opinion detract from or confuse a reading of your disrupt-the-web
advocacy. 

Serious pieces are welcome, there are people here on a number of other lists
which are XML-specific or XML-related, but content is more engaging than
glosses.

Cheers,
Eric

---

From: "Simon St.Laurent" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:12:21 -0400

>in my opinion detract from or confuse a reading of your disrupt-the-web

It seemed to fit in well enough with some of the WAP discussions here, but
okay.

>which are XML-specific or XML-related, but content is more engaging than

I didn't think anyone would appreciate my republishing the article here,
and it seemed that some cross-pollination between the XML community and the
IETF might be worthwhile on these issues.

Sorry for the, er, disruption.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

---

From: "Simon St.Laurent" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:02:44 -0400

>Sorry for the, er, disruption.

I've gotten a few questions about where to discuss this article.  XML.com
is hosting a forum for discussion of the article.  Their forum software is
creaky - don't use double quotes in a posting, as it won't work, and plain
text is best - and soon to be replaced, but it may be a good place for
discussion:
http://www.xml.com/xml/forums?x-a=disp&x-id=20560

There isn't a whole lot there, I suspect because of the forum's software
problems. (No, it isn't XML-based.)  I'll be happy to hear questions and
concerns privately. 

There are also a number of XML-oriented mailing lists:
http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/mailinglists.html

XML-Dev would probably be the most appropriate forum should readers want to
pursue these discussions in a broader arena.  While I do hope IETF
participants ponder the article and some of its implications, I think many
participants would rather see discussion hosted elsewhere.

Simon St.Laurent