[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sun, 11 May 2003 11:29:01 -0600, Uche Ogbuji
<uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com> wrote:
> Why should anyone spend time reading broken W3C specs and responding to
> the official lists, when some WG members (not all) seem so clearly bent
> on cynical response to straightforward criticism? What makes anone think
> that the WGs will not just dismiss anything they disagree with with a
> flippant "I see no technical content in that comment"? Soem say "the W3C
> won't let them".
I understand why people are skeptical of this claim. My only data point in
favor of the hypothesis that the W3C won't simply approve future specs
against which there is reasoned, compelling criticism is SOAP 1.2 -- a very
small group of people (generally known as the RESTifarians)pretty much
convinced the TAG that the XMLP WG had not "rowed all the way across the
ocean", even though the WG thought they were in sight of land. (This is in
reference to the lack of an HTTP binding for the GET method for "safe"
service invocations.) The XMLP WG pretty much dropped everything and added
the "Web method" feature in response. That was far from everything the
dissenters wished for, but has some pretty profound implications.
The other reason that people should "spend time reading broken W3C specs"
is that few of us really have the luxury of ignoring the downstream
implications of a spec that is widely supported by the major players.
Whether or not one considers namespaces or XSDL types "broken", they've
created considerable challenges for almost everyone, and perhaps some of
these could have been avoided if more people "laid down in the road" and
demanded more implementation and interoperability experience before these
specs were made into Recommendations.
|
