RE: intertwined specs

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

I agree completely with Tim.  It's a bear to 
keep a design in scope unless the consensus 
for the boundaries is very strong.  Nevertheless, 
that is the job the chair takes on.  Doesn't mean 
that it's right; does constrain the acceptance. 
The other end is too little means trivial application. 
The only good cure is practice.  That is why 
chairs are in high demand; not because the 
rewards are great, but because the results depend a 
lot on practice.

Ah heck.  Tornadic rain just dropped on top of 
us.  Back later....

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]

One man's "intertwined" is another's "consistent".  I think a lack
of interconnectedness would be a bigger problem.

The real problem, the one that I think is actually causing Simon's
pain, is that these things are all too big, too complicated, and have
a contemptuous disdain for trying to hit 80/20 points.  Missing the 
point of the Web, I call this.  Mind you, having been through the
closing months of getting XML 1.0 finished when it was already too
big and every power player and their dog wanted to get just one 
more feature in, I can see how it happens.  Doesn't mean it's right.