[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
One of the best articles about standards I've seen is the one by James
Gosling at
http://java.sun.com/people/jag/StandardsPhases/index.html
It is quite interesting to watch history repeat itself in the W3C.
Especially with regards to standards being vehicles of experimention and
research instead of agreeing on proven techniques.
PS: Reading the linked Zeldman.com article I couldn't help but be
puzzled by "XHTML 1.0 brought consistent rules to traditional web markup
and helped it play well with XML applications. These standards made
sense because they solved real problems.". In hindsight, are there
people who truly believe XHTML 1.0 solved any real problems besides
making HTML buzzword compliant? Honest question not flamebait.
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Nature is a mother.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 1:44 PM
> To: 'andrzej@chaeron.com'
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>
> Standards should be all the things
> the author of that blog wants, but anything that clear and
> that well-ironed out is also well-implemented and probably
> through at least a half-life. Or it is trivial.
>
> Proposing technologies on the other hand, without experience
> in the field being spec'd is only a learning curve and if one
> insists on calling them standard to boot, everyone gets to
> take the ride with them even if the train is going nowhere.
> It's called "sharing the pain".
>
> In short, people want to be standardizing while they are
> still experimenting because they fear that when the
> experiment is over, so is the market, or because they badly
> need lots of eyeballs or the experience of others for
> whatever reason. One thing I've noticed; the more people get
> excited and run to join the WG, the less chance the work has
> of getting done inside a year. Process isn't poison; people
> who use process to gain advantages not otherwise obtainable
> by technical insight are.
> And when one has that insight, process lawyering is only
> needed to stop mobs.
>
> As to the HypeMachine, one learns to ignore
> it. One adopts personal metrics for figuring
> out when a technology train is worth catching.
> Usually it is, "how badly to I need that right now" and maybe
> "is it implemented in the toolkit I will be using in
> production six months from now".
>
> If it gets past those two, it is also possibly IAW with what
> the author of the blog is going on about.
>
> len
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrzej Jan Taramina [mailto:andrzej@chaeron.com]
>
> > The reality is that the vendors are proposing technologies.
>
> AMEN to that Len! All this talk of "XML standards" by the
> vendors makes me sick. The problem is that there are a lot
> of PHM's out there that take what the big boys say on face
> value. <sigh>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
>
|
