Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- To: Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@iedigital.net>
- Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 01:10:52 -0700
Bill la Forge:
> > One of the big advantages of Java is that a small shop can
> > tackle significant projects. With clean specs, the same will
> > be true for XML.
> Hands up, who has read the Java spec (and that's not the same as reading
> the nice clear instructions given to you by the people who wrote the
I have. Both the core language and the library specs, about three years ago
(just about when 1.0 came out). They were very simple, clear, and even more
useful than many of the textbooks I have since seen. They were certainly
superior to any of the W3C specs I've read (and I've read HTML 4.0, XML 1.0,
Namespaces, DOM 1.0, XLink, XPointer, and XSL).
In fact, despite what Paul says, I often try to learn new technologies by
reading the specs directly. I have had varying success, but I don't intend to
change my habits any time soon, despite my experiences with the W3C.
A lot of people appear to be ducking the fact that one _can_ write clear,
concise and readable specs without sacrificing the necessary precision and
formality: it just requires effort. I don't know whether the problems with
W3C specs come from lack of inclination towards such effort, or lack of
resources for such effort.
FourThought LLC, IT Consultants
Software engineering, project management, Intranets and Extranets
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)