[Greg Connor's post]
Generally agree, but read below.
Teddy wrote:
But one thing I don't understand: Why should we
(everyone that is progarming someting SPF or CID
related) implement two ways of publishing and
parsing the records? Why couldn't we stand here
together and take ONE?
To avoid a schism that would split the community in two. Now is not the
time, and there is more than enough opposition to Microsoft and XML to
choose this as the only path, just too risky. And if there's nothing
from Microsoft ideas in SPFv2, they'll walk away from the deal. There
could be nothing worse at this point than two camps competing for
adoption and both failing to reach critical mass.
The number one priority is to DEPLOY, and if it means two different
parsers, be it. When SPFv2 is widely deployed, _then_ we can take care
of our dirty laundry because we will know by then what the market wants
to do. The proof is in the pudding.
Personally, I don't like XML. However, my position is:
- The merger HAS happened. This is not something that can be undone
without creating a schism and to those that have not grasped that yet, I
say grow up.
- If XML is such the crap that everyone says, it will not be successful
so there's little to worry about as long as there is an alternative.
OTOH, if the market chooses to implement XML in significant numbers it
means that there's a need for it, and I will implement even if I don't
like it.
Michel.