[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: intertwined specs
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:10:28 -0600
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....
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Tim Bray [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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.