xml-dev - Re: W3C, responsibility (Re: Why the Infoset?)

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Michael Champion wrote:

> The W3C is not some
> monolithic organization doing things for obscure and sinister purposes,

Aw, shucks.  *finger-snap*

> I don't see how the
> W3C benefits from over-hyping a promised spec that proves underwhelmingly
> capable or overwelmingly complex in practice.

"Publicity is good.  Good publicity is even better."
 
> In short, I see the "questionable" behavior that was noted (some of it which
> I have no trouble with, such as the deprecation of SGML ... and other that I
> deplore, such as the growing complexity of the XML-related specs) as the
> result of ordinary mortals trying to do so much in so little time, not
> self-serving calculation by the W3C or its members.

I agree with this.

> Something like XML Schema is so complex
> because it is the product of 35 (or whatever) people with at least that many
> separate agendas.

And Infoset is lucidly simple because I myself designed and wrote it with
very little interference (or even input) from anybody.  :-) :-)

> W3C specs fully demonstrate
> the truth of the adage "a camel is a horse invented by a committee".  If you
> want something swift, graceful and beautiful, don't require it to go without
> food or water for a week while surviving extremes of heat and cold.

But I don't understand; camels *are* swift, graceful, and beautiful!

> Ruthless elimination of complicating
> constraints will be much more effective than attempts to eliminate
> self-serving behavior, even if such a thing were possible.

Unfortunately, discarding Real World constraints produces the beautiful
product that nobody uses.  "Worse is better."

-- 

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)