[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Ann Navarro <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:43:57 -0500
That's the human condition. Cooperation
only goes so far, then it is business as usual.
That is why we have these maillists, and why
I like to see consortia balanced by international
standards organizations. It is byzantine and
slow, but usually balanced. The consortia
has members for customers, the standards orgs
have governments, and we have self-interests.
As painful as that is, it works. It is why
we preserve options. If one thing fails,
we have a list of ever greater options with
attendant costs. Keep it in mind next time
someone says, SGML should die. It is the
unthinkable option that becomes thinkable
when other options are exhausted. That is
also why feedback from XML development should
be folded back into ISO 8879. Some out
there may hate that, but in my opinion, that
is ego, not experience talking. SGML is not
"omniscient", it is just old and in need of a
facelift. But it remains the parent and for
the good of everyone, it should remain so.
The day that changes, XML is on its way to
Yeah, I long for a few days of thistle
races myself... leaned out, spinnaker
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Ann Navarro [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
My fear, is that we have seen a tendency of late for even intra-W3C
development and communication to be insular -- making impossible or
improbable the chances for success where one group has been *given* the
requirement of being dependent on another group, who then chooses at will
to accept or disregard the requirements of the dependent group at will, and
often for less-than-technical reasons.
The W3C may be a ocean, but the ports between her islands certainly need to
(OK, I have sailing on the brain, but you get the point).