|
Perhaps it is best for everyone to understand what side
I am
on. I side with Cowan but completely understand
Elliotte's position and support that too. We need to
accommodate
the
variants. We need to reckon the costs. That is as clear
as I can state it.
In
some cases and situations one finds oneself engineering for, a core
product that is customizable is the solution. Cases where
local
diversity is real, is not amenable to homogenization, customization
is to
be preferred, and in fact, is a source of business. That the
ancient mediterranean community agreed on demotic enabled
trade. Yet they did not give up local custom or language; they
adapted to a common language. XML is that. A
common
language was created and applied by subsetting an international
standard for creating languages. The international
standard provides a
declaration file as the ultimate means of customization. Therefore,
in
cases where there are local requirements in conflict with the
global
language declaration, the option of enabling the local system to create
its
own variant for its own purpose is preserved. Costs must be
reckoned for that and it is wise to reckon these in advance. But
the
cost of permanently removing the option to further a cause
of
global interoperability under the aegis of international companies
is to
my thinking, horrible.
As Tim
Bray said, one looks at the options and has some
discomfort with each. I have no problem with
making
a choice. I choose diversity because the alternative
is to
tell groups "they cannot play". The IBM NEL doesn't
bother
me much. The Japanese language issues bother
me a
lot.
It is
a world wide web, not a bottle of homogenized milk.
If the W3C for business reasons decides
not to support
this, being a business consortium, that is
their decision
to make. However, I do think
those affected adversely
should remember they have an escape hatch
provided
by ISO whose customers being the
governments of the
world have considered local needs
wisely. Again, there
is a cost to reckoned in all such
deicsions, and the greatest
cost may be interoperability as you
note.
So, optimally, the task is to preserve
interoperability and enable
diversity, not one or the
other.
Len
|