[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 2:53 PM
> To: Mike Champion
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org; jwrobie@mindspring.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] W3C Successes (RE: [xml-dev] W3C
> Culture and Aims )
>
> > Hmm, the last of these was more than four years ago. And
> both of them
> > resulted from the W3C's "old" role as a place where vendors
> can come
> > together to define interoperability profiles of reasonably
> > well-understood technologies.
>
> Um, as regards XML, you're joking, right? Look at the
> history. It's _completely_ unlike HTML, it was way out ahead
> of what any vendors were thinking about, much less
> trying-and-failing to interoperate. It
> was in fact a lot like XSLT and XML Schema: real new science
> was done
> in the WGs.
>
Mike's characterization is right on point. Standards bodies work well
when they see their task as the codification of best practices (look at
the C standards org) versus when they consider themselves think-tanks
(XML Schema, XQuery, C++, etc).
I personally can't look at any W3C recommendation and call it "real new
science" and keep a straight face. I wonder how you can?
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
If you want to recapture your youth, cut off his allowance.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
You assume all risk for your use. (c) 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights reserved.
|
