Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 09:09:11 +0100 |
Hi Simon. What you are missing is that my arguements would see a *reduction* of costs for data, not an increase. The data I am talking about *costs*. Quality data in large searchable, categorised amounts costs, whichever vendor you get it from. And costs a lot. Hence most of the Web isn't even aware of it's existsence. When you see all those Wired inspired articles about the information rich and the information poor, this is the stuff that makes those articles a reality. What I am suggesting is that the XML + XSL/XFO goes *some* way, not all the way, to make it safe delivering this data into a more open environments, thereby upping the scale of the market (drasticaly), and thereby reducing the costs significantly. To the point whereby advertising alone, *may* cover costs. This arguement isn't talking about bringing new costs to already accessible data. It's talking about making available the data mountians that the large corporates can only afford, to the general public. Large medical databases, exhaustive market analysis etc etc. This doesn't take away anything from the potential of XML, and in that regard I don't believe it has been oversold. It certainly makes life a lot easier for the developer. And if you're paying for a raw feed, or you're a reseller, you can get the raw XML piped straight to you. What you have to realise Simon is for a long time now there hasn't been one Web (it's arguable as to if there ever was one), with most business activity occuring on intra/extranets. What I'm suggesting allows things to move to a somewhat more open unified Web thatn currently exists. And at the end of the day.... how many of the general public give a damn about the semantics behind the article they're reading? Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 04/29/99 01:05:35 AM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful [SNIP] If that's genuinely the case, it seems that XML has been grossly oversold as cure for the problems of the Web. I find it highly ironic that XSL, with its transformations and formatting objects, is so readily capable of blocking the move toward a meaningful Web that XML was supposed to provide. Given that the same group of people seems to be involved in both specs, the irony is even greater. The W3C does claim to be the keeper of the Web in some important respects, and XML did seem to be a key part of that vision. Tim Berners-Lee regularly speaks about making search engines and agents actually usable with the assistance of XML, and I can't say I see how this business model will square with that dream. Saying that it doesn't matter if XSL contributes to a dumbed-down Web seems to ignore the fact that XML was supposed to make that Web smarter, not stupider. Given the choices between the Web today and no Web at all, I'll certainly take the Web. Given the choice between the Web today and a Web with meaningful information, I'll take the meaningful Web. XSL seems to be making the latter option more difficult, not easier. >You cannot watch "Sports Night" without commercials either. It is an >annoying business model but it is a business model that allows me to watch >sports night. We already have advertisements, which seem to occupy about 50% of my Web visits. If selling semantics is going to be a viable business model, we'd better get back to those micropayments... Simon St.Laurent XML: A Primer Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies http://www.simonstl.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Transformation + FOs makes abus, Guy_Murphy | Thread | XFO Mapping..., Guy_Murphy |
RE: Transformation + FOs makes abus, Guy_Murphy | Date | XFO Mapping..., Guy_Murphy |
Month |