Re: Why not XML
2004-06-22 21:54:27
The appearance of Hadmut Danisch in the In Favor Of XML camp is definitely
a blow to the anti-XML team. This, coupled with the support of Phillip
Hallam-Baker is almost enough to make the anti-XML team lose hope.
Here Hadmut demonstrates a typical argument method in the Not Based On
Logic categorym that of making fun of an argument he disagrees with. The
listener may be swayed into thinking that if the argument can be mocked, it
must not have been serious in the first place.
--Hadmut Danisch <hadmut(_at_)danisch(_dot_)de> wrote:
wayne wrote:
There are also some not very technical/rational reasons:
* Many mail admins don't like/understand XML.
I do know so many mail admins who don't like/understand DNS.
Therefore we shouldn't use DNS.
Here is another example of the non-logical argument technique called
"mocking".
"Many mail admins don't like cheese. Therefore, MARID should be made out
of bread!"
* XML is promoted by MS a lot, and many mail admins don't like MS.
Correct. I don't like MS either.
As far as I know MS promotes the use of e-mail, computers, and internet.
We should stop using e-mail, computers and internet.
Hmm, that one will be tough to top. But I will try. How about:
"MS promotes shareholder value. Therefore we should reject capitalism,
move to a commune, and weave MARID records on the same loom we use to weave
clothes made of our own hair."
Now. All joking aside, I have a great deal of respect for Hadmut and his
work... we probably would not have arrived where we are today without him.
But, the arguments being made here are not logical ones. In fact, Hadmut's
message here is an *excellent* example of someone reacting emotionally (and
making an emotional argument) rather than reacting with logic.
Surprised? You shouldn't be... because the whole XML issue is VERY
emotionally charged. We are all reacting emotionally to it, and you had
better believe our customers will react emotionally to it as well. We
ignore this point at our peril. Will our customers have an emotional
reaction to XML? If so, no army of technical experts will change that
reaction.
What if it's true, that more admins will adopt it if the record is easy to
read with the unaided eye and easy to write with the unaided hand? Is that
even a consideration for the "make it future-proof" crew? Would people on
this team prefer to create something that expands in 8 directions and comes
with a flip-out compass and a toothpick? If it will get used by fewer
domains for totally non-technical reasons, is that important?
In some years in the industry, I have noticed that a lot of really, really
smart, really intelligent people will be unable to deal with emotions on
any level. Of course they have them, but they will deny it and provide
lengthy, detailed, technical explanations as to why they believe the way
they do. The stronger the feeling, the more verbose the so-called logical
explanation. These individuals will even use cunning wit to attack someone
else ruthlessly, with no way to explain bad behavior other than "Well, he
was wrong." (Inconsiderate, even rude behavior such as Hadmut resorted to
here is a sign of an emotional reaction in progress.)
At the same time, these incredibly smart individuals will often be
dumbfounded and helpless when faced with someone else who *admits* to
having an emotional reaction. Explaining how you feel to someone who deals
on an intellectual plane 99% of the time is like speaking a different
language -- they either cannot comprehend, or dismiss it is not logical,
therefore stupid.
On an emotional level, here are two possible reactions that people might
have to XML.
1. Ooooh, shiny. I'll bet it goes fast. I would really like an excuse to
take that syntax for a test drive. (Let's call this the "engineer's
reaction")
2. Yuck, that's ugly. And 20% longer. I sure hope it works right the
first time because I sure don't want to debug it. (Let's call this the
"sysadmin's reaction")
We have to be ready to deal with BOTH reactions, and since they are
emotional reactions, we can't explain them away. We can get around them,
but not with engineering powers... the power to change an emotional
reaction is reserved only for the marketers :)
You know, I'll admit that I'm reacting emotionally too. I'm no different.
But, I guess I need to heed my own advice and take a step back. If we have
near-agreement on semantics, identities, and features and then totally lose
all unity and team spirit over something as simple as syntax, we are
guaranteed to look silly and be irrelevant in 5 years, probably less. This
outcome would be much worse than publishing a standard that needs revision
within a year and is obsolete in three.
So. Who is ready to compromise?
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: Drive Towards Consensus, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: Drive Towards Consensus, Greg Connor
- Why not XML, wayne
- Re: Why not XML, Hadmut Danisch
- RE: Why not XML, terry
- Re: Why not XML,
Greg Connor <=
- Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Hadmut Danisch
- Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Sean Comeau
- Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Luis Bruno
- Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), hadmut
- Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Mark Lentczner
- Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Luis Bruno
- Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Luis Bruno
- Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Sean Comeau
- RE: Why not XML, Michael R. Brumm
- Re: Why not XML, Hadmut Danisch
|
|
|