Lists Home |
Date Index |
Yes, as long as the time to sort out the
second system syndrome issues are accounted
for by a process that really and truly sorts
out new feature "gotta haves" from "neatos".
That is very hard work, to be sure.
Punt from the W3C to ISO through formal
processes that first establish when a
specified technology is eligible (eg,
the time metric you suggest) for parole,
to a revolving membership committee that
hears and considers arguments for parole
which result in a recommendation for and
against parole that is provided to the
membership at large on a vote for parole.
Then ISO has to vote to accept a parolee. Remember,
Dr. Goldfarb's admonition: ISO won't be a rubberstamp,
so some parolees go back to jail if they are
len (too much time spent looking at public safety problems)
From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
We would be better off with a process for revisiting W3C specifications
after some period of time. For instance, perhaps a Recommendation should
have a lifetime of 3-5 years, after which it is replaced with a real standard.