RE: [xml-dev] Re: validating hairy data models (was [xml-dev] Attribute order)

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

Or just ask questions on XML-Dev.... about anything.  
godz always have a good answer even to a bad question. ;-)

<op-ed>A good standard needs to rot on the line for awhile, just 
like a game bird.  We made up this myth called Internet 
Time and used it to muscle other groups and works off 
the line, only to discover that our own groups and 
works are every bit as flawed and made worse because 
they didn't spend enough time rotting in the wind before 
being cut down for basting.   Some people think the revolution 
is over, killed by BigCos, lawyers, the music industry, 
and so on.  In fact, the normal damping controls kicked in 
about on time.   I think the real revolution is 
just starting and most of what has happened for the last 
ten years was staging.   This revolution is about communication. 
Like a performing band, it takes a lot of practice 
before even very skilled players can improvise in real time.</op-ed>

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@allette.com.au]
 
Natural language communication is always flawed, and formal
specs in artificial languages often leave chunks out or themselves
need proving or err on the side of specifying what is easy to 
represent in their notation/formalism.  Executable specs
for standards (such as IDL) are quite a lot better, but most
specs are not for interfaces.

So the idea of standards as Holy Writ passed down from the 
gods messes everyone up: a standard is the result of negotiations
from some community, and the best way to make standards 
work is to integrate in with that community and to get to know
the original intent.