Re: What can be changed, and what cannot? (was: Re: Request for a poll)

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

At 12:56 AM 3/16/01 +0800, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>Perhaps it would be clearer to say that I fear a distraction causing a lack
>of participation in guiding the W3C specs in directions we may share, rather
>than having much interest in suppressing minimalist's (archeological) desire
>for reform per se.)

Maybe I'm simply wacked, but I can't say I encourage "participation in 
guiding the W3C specs in directions we may share" at this point, having 
found it to be a thankless and rather futile pursuit.

I strongly suggest that developers who find W3C specs distasteful develop 
competing approaches.  XArc had a (in my view) beneficial impact on XLink, 
and I hope RELAX, TREX, and Schematron have a similarly beneficial impact 
on XML Schemas.  Smaller groups (even individuals) may be able to outpace 
and outperform the W3C's growing committees as well.

The W3C does _some_ interesting work.  I don't, however, think the 
institution's later specs should be allowed to rest on the laurels created 
by a few earlier specs.  The value of XML 1.0 seems pretty clear (and I'd 
suggest is worthy of strict adherence).  The rest seems pretty clouded, 
with occasional moments of sunshine.


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