[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
No. I like the specs with simple features per spec that
I can apply to different problems efficiently. I specifically
don't like garbanzo bean salad specs.
The problem is to get a spec a customer can cite that does not
pull all the other features in by normative reference. I like
them even leaner than you.
This:
XML [check/uncheck]
or this
ANI/ALI packet support. XML format IAW NENA Specification. [check/uncheck]
The second option is money for value. The first option is
wasted money. Real solutions for systems required to
interoperate; not open systems rant.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 13:22, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> >I'm not content with selling the world an enormous mash of features and
> >possible combinations of features and leaving it to developers of
> >particular applications to sort out which parts are valuable and which
> >are trash.
>
> They have to sort out which features will solve a problem for them
> and which are not of use to a particular application. You can't do
> that for them. I am your customer.
So you _like_ the model where specs contain trillions of features that
_you_ get to pick and choose from?
I'm sorry Len, but I think you've been selling closed systems for way
too long.
Those of us out in the open world can't cope with that model, and damn
well shouldn't have to - especially on specs from the W3C, which
theoretically cares about the useful-because-it's-an-open-model Web.
You may be _a_ customer, but you aren't the only one.
|
