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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: W3C, responsibility (Re: Why the Infoset?)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
  • To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 10:26:58 -0400

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:

> But you were the person who kept bringing up 'moral issues' on xml-uri, so
> you seem to have some respect for the W3C as a keeper of standards.  (In
> that discussion, I clearly had less respect for such 'moral issues'.)

Although I am an employee of a member corporation of the W3C, my participation
predates my employment, and I have not attempted to advocate the particular
interest of my employer.  (Indeed, I don't know what its particular interest
might be.)  Rather, I see it as my duty *to myself* to
ensure that the W3C is held to the highest possible moral standard as
long as I am involved in it or with it.  Not to do so would be to undercut my own
> I guess the question I keep having is whether the Infoset should do the
> best job that seems possible, given the additional exposure it will
> definitely receive as a publication of the W3C.

I think that it should.  "Best", however, immediately provokes the
question "best for what or whom?"

>  Seems to me that 'best
> job' in this case would involve some attempt at 'complete', since it's
> called the 'XML Information Set', not the 'Common XML Information Set'.

In my judgment, fully-reconstructible completeness such as Jonathan Borden
seeks is neither necessary nor appropriate for the W3C, as I
think it would tend to hinder rather than help acceptance of the standard
among its primary customers: other W3C WGs.

You and I seem to disagree only on particular points, not on the general
principle of excluding some information.  It is unfair
(and I can't help it) that those who are W3C members or invited experts
get first-class access to the discussion, whereas all others can be heard
but can't *interact*.  Nevertheless, you *are* heard (as part of the
moral imperatives mentioned above), and your needs will be met if I can
do so consistently with my other responsibilities and my technical judgment.
(And of course I am not TimBL, so I can be overridden.)


Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)


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

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