OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: SAX RFD: ModSAX Predefined Features

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: Lloyd Harding <lloyd@digitaljam.com>
  • To: xml-dev-digest@ic.ac.uk
  • Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:09:45 -0600

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Bill la Forge
> | So that's why I'm butting in here. I think an open standards process
> | is important for individuals and small companies. We need to do what
> | we can to keep the ball rolling here.
> We are certainly in heartfelt agreement here. :)

David Brownell wrote:

Gee, as a wage-slave working for a big company, I hope that I'm
not _too_ excluded from the discussions ... :-)

Seriously:  my personal model is a lot more akin to the original
IETF style "running code and working consensus" model than most
existing standards bodies.  I'm a lot happier with standards that
come from such a process than from ones that involve fat specs
that can't be implemented.  Writing code is generally more fun
than specs -- though an elegant spec is also a work of art!

- - Dave

Standards processes require effort and in all cases the effort is
primarily provided by individuals from large companies. Small companies
do not have the resources to put into standards efforts. Voting members
make the difference and they are
typically not small company employees.

That is not to say standards bodies do not have methods for
non-voting input. They all do. 

There are as many defacto standards that have failed as there
are planned standards that have failed. There are as many
defacto standards that have succeeded as there are planned standards
that have succeeded. To claim one is better than
another without details is not sufficient.

Personal perception might be based on the the differences 
in methods for receiving input or differences in the scope
or differences in personal preference regarding process.

But claiming one is better than the other based on 
failure/success rate requires more detail regarding
definitions of failure/success and analysis of history
to be convincing.
I believe the issue is not so much which method is best
but rather WHEN method A is better than method B.

Implementation first versus specification first is similar to
deduction versus induction. Both have their places the
question is when.



Lloyd Harding                                 lloyd@infoauto.com
               Information Assembly Automation Inc.
   SGML/XML Services for the Publishing and Medical Community
Architectural Design, DTD Creation, Editorial System Development

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS