OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Announce: XML Schema, The W3C's Object-Oriented Des cripti

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Yeah, standards fail too.  But let's ask if the 
process will be improved, and the risk made 
more evident if we separate specs from standards 
and assert claims based on two different processes 
with two different sets of inputs.  As I recall, 
the W3C started out like that.  What information 
or revelation changed that stance?

It may not fix the problem of a flawed standard, 
but it could be better.  I realize that the W3C 
also wants implementations before it signs off, 
but evidently, that hasn't work in this case. 

Risk management:  

Maybe when we know that a spec and the technology 
it requests have global risks, we have 
to slow it down.  Given vendor domination, 
it is hard to do that at the W3C and no 
single individual should have to stand up to 
that kind of pressure.  If we separate these, 
then we put the risks right up front.

It isn't a problem of who; it is a perception 
of authority over expertise and unknowns. 

DSDL appears to be sensible.  Why?  Because 
the experts now have a solid foundation of 
mistakes and successes.  Factoring these out, 
doing the merging is now not a matter of 
guesswork.  In my opinion, that makes the 
technology a ripe candidate for a standard. 

What is the problem here?  It means a delayed 
gratification and a longer risk for early 
adopters.   We would have to accept that we 
might have to toss one or two away; even ones 
we paid for.  Ok.  How is that diffferent than 
what we are doing now?


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>   Whatever the merits of James' analysis, 
> it is about two years too late.

I really hope you're wrong.  Early days yet.

> Let me ask: should we quit claiming to be creating 
> standards and admit the role of specifications? That 
> is, one implements a spec and assumes the risk that 
> it may have flaws.  A standard, by contrast, should be 
> relatively risk free because the implemented technologies 
> and the communities that use them have uncovered them.

Oh "standards" are "risk-free" are they?  I know a guy who can tell you 
about the greater than a billion dollars he helped a well-known computer 
company piss away betting on OSI networking.  I could cite the name of a 
half-dozen other "standards" that are now industry in-jokes, and so 
could you Len.  The notion that a standard's origin has much to do with 
how good it is is unsupported by the evidence.  -Tim


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS