[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Then there is the project where a couple of programmers
exchanged email, built a system, and we had to throw it
away because the RFP called for compliance with the
Interstate Rap Sheet spec. Or the one where we said,
'aw heck, just write a transform'. Today I am sitting
here with a couple of different schemas and kludging
pieces from each. I expect to rework these later when
the 'official' versions come from the committees.
It's only a lot too much work if I have to serve on
the committee too. Thank you, Mr Meadlock.
Sometimes the committees work well and reasonably
efficiently. Sometimes they don't. The gig is not
to become a deer caught in the headlights. If we
know enough to work with the emailed solution, we
usually know enough to work with the committee's
solution. One, we may have to adapt it, but two,
we know where it is, it is documented, and it is
in a regular form. The joy of XML is that it can't
wander too far afield that all the work has to be
tossed.
Horses for courses. It makes a difference
for a qualified win to start at the proper gate.
Experience helps to pick the gate.
I despair when I see official advice from the US
government that attributes are bad de facto. That is when
I know the wrong people are in charge. Blessedly,
they don't usually control the procurement officials.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
Not only that, but it's kind of what's happening. If I may indulge in
horrid overgeneralization, there seem to be two kinds of XML projects:
those where they send some emails and examples back and forth and are
now in production, and those where they strike a task force to assemble
the schemas, and the project is still in committee stage. -Tim
|
