Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Ronald Bourret <email@example.com>
- To: XML-Dev Mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:12:24 +0100
Paul Prescod wrote:
> I used the term *dumb down* in reference to *myself*. The average
> developer is a dummy in all but a few fields, just like me. We cannot
> restrict all fields until they are simple enough for everyone to
> understand. As someone pointed out recently, we wouldn't have a
> technologically advancing civilization if we did that. If we cannot agree
> on that much then further discussion is not going to be productive.
I don't think Simon is asking for simpler technology. I think he's asking
for more explanatory writing in the specs. Precision is almost impossible
to achieve in spoken languages -- there is always somebody clever or
foolish enough to "misinterpret" the most basic words -- and so the
question is whether you write a short, highly formal spec, interpret it
afterward, and hope that everybody hears/understands you, or write a
longer, perhaps less formal spec, interpret it place, and hope you don't
introduce inconsistencies and ambiguities, or go somewhere in between.
Personally, I vote for the longer, slightly less formal route, as I believe
it leads to wider acceptance and, in the long run, less misinterpretation.
That said, I've written enough specs in my lifetime that I sympathize with
anyone who writes one at all, no matter what style they choose.
-- Ron Bourret
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)