[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I think that producing specs is much like producing software, or music.
When individuals do it, primarily for intellectual satisfaction rather
than to make money, then it comes out anywhere from brilliant to awful
depending on the skills of the individual. And if it's awful then
everyone ignores it.
When corporations do it for commercial profit, then it comes out usable
but mediocre.
Michael Kay
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@comcast.net]
> Sent: 27 October 2002 04:48
> To: xml-dev
> Subject: [xml-dev] Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?
>
>
> Sometimes it seems to me that most of the XML-related
> Recs/Specs that xml-dev'ers approve of are those that James
> Clark had a major influence on. Sax is an exception, I
> suppose, but that had David M. playing a unifying role, so
> maybe it is in a similar category.
>
> I would like to ask a few questions about this.
>
> 1) Is this perception widely shared on the list?
> 2) If so, is it specifically James, or is it the mode of development?
> 3) Are there any examples of good/elegant/approved (by
> xml-dev'ers) recs that were developed in a different way?
> 4) If there is a mode of development that tends to lead to
> especially good/elegant/etc recs, can we foster that mode?
> Or does it take specific individuals with very special
> knowledge and personal qualities?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom P
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org
> <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS
<http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
