RE: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

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 
the dustbin.

Yeah, I long for a few days of thistle 
races myself... leaned out, spinnaker 
up, reaching...

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Navarro [mailto:ann@webgeek.com]

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 
be open.

(OK, I have sailing on the brain, but you get the point).