[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> Take the case of XML 1.0. There was a large semi-public group (of over
> 100 people?) which nutted through most issues, then a smaller group (10 or so)
> which figured out what the consensus/outcome/implementation of the larger
> group's debate was, then a smaller group (the editors, two or three) who figure
> out what the consensus/outcome/implementation/wording of the working
> group was, then finally the W3C director
Rick's post is to the point. He leaves out one detail: membership in
the larger group was by appointment by the smaller group. We had a
very precise criterion: expertise, demonstrated by track record, in
either or both of SGML and the Web. There were those who were turned
away.
It worked awfully well. But I'm not sure you could sustain that model
any more. Among other things, the worldwide pool of people with SGML
and deep Web expertise in 1996 was damn small :)
> Lets look at XML 1.1 in contrast. There we have inaccessible discussions by a tiny
> group on something that impacts a lot of people. There is no mechanism to
> try to ascertain even basic questions such as "Is an XML 1.1 acceptable, or
> should we go to XML 2.0".
Yep. I am profoundly uncomfortable with the XML 1.1 process. -Tim
|
