[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 15:09, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> Here's perhaps the core statement of your earlier email.
>
> >Precisely. It gets very tiring to be told to talk in terms which mirror
> >the expectations of the designers and which address only details of the
> >specification (and preferably on the official lists). Or did you really
> >mean that I was supposed to argue on your turf and your turf only?
>
> I think I asked you to be concrete. I think I also asked for use cases,
> examples, concrete implementation concerns, or anything else concrete
> enough to be evaluated on a technical level.
And my point, stated repeatedly but apparently not clearly enough, is
that "concrete implementation" is not the root of the problem. It's a
horribly ill-considered set of priorities that have produced a mammoth
specification whose likely concrete contributions are going to be the
salvageable fragments that other developers can rescue.
Discussion of syntax nits while architecture is looking dismal is
generally not my preferred way to clean up a standard.
The W3C XML Schema folks used precisely the same tactics to make it
clear that they would not or could change their broken foundations and,
well, look at the mess.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
