[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 13:47, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 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.
Lean sounds good. Perhaps it makes sense to require the specifications
themselves to come with an explicit set of checkboxes this way?
That'd mean developers could:
a) see what the options are
b) specify what options they use in a way that will be easily understood
and shared
Hmmm.... maybe we'll get back to the SGML declaration eventually. Us
open systems ranters could just take the core set minus all the extra
pieces so we didn't have to worry about inconvenient expectations.
I suspect that Working Groups will shudder at the thought of any of
their precious features being listed as expendable this way, but it's
about time for clarity if they aren't willing to throw more things out.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
