[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>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.
Hmm - I don't disagree with your sentiments...but there are two points worth
bearing in mind. The recommendation/standardization of a spec by the W3C
isn't any more binding than that of anyone else, and if the spec is half
useful then people will develop & experiment with it not matter what its
'official' status. The other point is probably more pertinent - you're
unlikely to get consensus on *any* spec, no matter what its merits there'll
always be plenty of naysayers. Even with the best will in the world, it's
practically impossible to be accurate when predicting the potential for
*future* problems. Erring on the side of caution too much means getting
nothing done. So the great wheels of technology grind to a halt, the soup
kitchens fill with tech authors and journalists, and xml-dev gets back to
that unresolved angels/pinhead issue...
Cheers,
Danny.
|
