[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: intertwined specs
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- To: Ben Trafford <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:59:43 -0500
At 10:07 AM 2/16/01 -0800, Ben Trafford wrote:
> The upshot is that I believe it would behoove our friends at W3C
>to publish the roadmap I mentioned above, because it would help developers
>choose which specs to go with, and give them an idea of what the whole
>development picture would look like.
I'd love to see such a creature, but I've spent the last three years
writing them, more or less. Those roads have grown ever more twisted, as
horse paths evolved into interstates on the same patch of land.
On the other hand, it's got me thinking that maybe some of the problem is
sheer nomenclature - the labels on the map. If, instead of calling
everything in sight 'XML Something' and treating it like part of XML, the
W3C assigned names to its specs that didn't make them sound like part of
XML, developers might be a little less confused. That might create a
little more space.
Implementing those specs wouldn't be any easier, but maybe there'd be more
room for smaller competitors which wouldn't have to compete with the 'XML'
brand so directly.
Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly and Associates
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books