[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: An open plea to the W3C (was Re: XInclude vs SAX vs validatio n)
- From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:13:32 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:27 PM
> To: Sean McGrath
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: An open plea to the W3C (was Re: XInclude vs SAX vs
> There is a fundamental question buried within your request:
> who are the users whose voices matter, and how do we identify them?
> Remember Lot pleading for Sodom and Gomorrah? How many people really
> using feature F of XML 1.0 + Namespaces + ... does it take in
> order to render it safe from pruning?
For what it's worth, Sean, Simon, Edd, and I got together to organize a
"Town Meeting" at XML 2001 (December, Orlando FL, actual time TBD) on this
very subject. I'm not sure how it will pan out, but I *hope* to hear from
those "users whose voices matter" as well as the usual suspects on this
Like all zealots, I'm firmly convinced that "the people" are on our side
<grin> and that very few of the paying customers would object if
XML+namespaces+infoset+schemas got a close shave at Rev. Occam's Barbershop.
On the other hand, I know that plenty of XML specialists would raise hell if
their favorite feature was shaved off. So I have the same question "who are
the users whose voices matter and how do we identify them?" I don't have
any great suggestions.
The default solution is to keep piling on the complexity until W3C process
collapses under its weight (arguably, it already has!), and then let someone
else come along and carve "Java" our of our "C++". I hope that we can be
more pro-active and do what needs to be done before 20:20 hindsight makes it
obvious what SHOULD have been done.