[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 5:41 PM +0100 11/24/02, Danny Ayers wrote:
> s been substantial criticism here and elsewhere, and no-one in their
>right might would say that RDF hasn't got it's faults. But I'm afraid the
>screaming voices are largely in your head. There has also been a lot said in
>favour of RDF - but perhaps you haven't heard those voices through the
>screams.
I've heard those voices too. However, my point is that the voices in
opposition should carry more weight than the voices in support. If
opinions are divided 50/50, don't issue the spec. People can continue
to work with, develop and experiment with the technologies in order
to convince the doubters. However, it is not appropriate to
standardize over substantial opposition.
In the past, I've seen two specs that got to recommendation stage
against substantial dissenting voices: schemas and namespaces. In
both cases, it turned out that the dissenting voices had very good
points, there were fundamental flaws in the specs, and those flaws
are now causing growing problems for everyone. Recommendations
should require consensus, (and consensus beyond the working group),
not simple majority vote.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| XML in a Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002) |
| http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
