Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: [xml-dev] linking, 80/20]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:50:59 -0500
I know, Wayne. That was sarcasm on my part. We can't make any of this
work without the support of the W3C, and they can't make any of this
work without our support. That is the reciprocal relationship that
makes up the essential contract of our communities.
On the other hand, intelligence emerges in the form of small
groups that bind members and sometimes bind groups via the
shared understandings of common members .
These bindings have a space/time property so one doesn't expect
eternal fidelity, but one can expect working relationships. Not
We really can do much here to sort out issues for the TAG.
We have to respect them and they have to respect us and
most of the time, we will achieve that by recognition that
we share members. We are an ecotone. Communications are
hot in ecotones. Again, not new news. Still, we also
have differences and that is also essential. If we didn't
have these, we would not evolve nor would the artifacts
we create such as the web evolve.
Tim correctly points out where XML-Dev efforts have resulted
in systems with real lifecycles, eg, SAX. But we are only
occasionally a design team. We are other things as well so
both we and the TAG have to respect that those artifacts which
we share a focus of attention over are not inclusive all the
time and in every case. The TAG has eyes and ears here to
sort those out. That's a respectful way to do it. In short,
not only do our technologies evolve, but our understanding as
well. That is the best sign of communal intelligence.
Patience, tolerance, compassion, energy -> wealth. The
wealth of this community is its knowledge and its mutual
respect. The practice of greatest value will be to
learn from the TAG how best to inform the TAG without
unduly restraining our own practices.
From: Wayne Steele [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.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.
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.