[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What can be changed, and what cannot? (was: Re: Request for a poll)
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Rick Jelliffe <email@example.com>,Michael Champion <firstname.lastname@example.org>,xml-dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:54:12 -0500
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