[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
>
>Ummm... so XML-Dev has to figure this out before the W3C listens? Huh?
>If that is all we have to do, then what do we need the W3C for?
>
>Great. Aaron, care to propose the elimination of the default?
>Any others? We can vote and get right to changing the code.
>No waiting.
>
>len
Sadly, this is not something that can be easily resolved by changing some
code and getting back to work.
The only solutions I can imagine are of the consensus building, best
practices type. Even if most XML-DEVers were to adopt a set of these,
nothing would prevent the W3C (or anyone else of status) from peeing in our
pool by embracing the very things that we have decided should be forbidden.
You, Me, Simon, and a hundred other people could all agree: "You should
never create an XML Grammar that beflurbs a splunge." But if the W3C comes
out with a new recomendation that works splunge beflurbing into the very
core of its meaning, all we have done is sow more confusion.
"so XML-Dev has to figure this out before the W3C listens?"
This might be true, and wouldn't be so bad. But if we figured it out, would
the W3C listen? (my money says no)
I see no future in XML-DEV developing best practices (beyond out own
edification), unless and until the W3C has a serious effort to determine
best practices (I'm sure they would be happy to be informed by XML-DEV
experiences) and enforce them upon working groups. Maybe the TAG can do
this. The fact of the TAG being so overloaded with work shows how much of a
need exists for this kind of thing.
-Wayne Steele
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
|
