|
|
Re: [xml-dev] Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 11/05/2003 20:46:11 GMT Daylight Time, mc@xegesis.org writes:
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.
Mike,
That's very much my view on XSD Schema. I wish I had somehow made more time to nag / suggest / criticise / whatever 3 years ago. And if a few people more intelligent than I had done the same the XML community just might have been saved an ongoing sore.
Whether W3C was as receptive to outside comment back then I tend to doubt. I suspect that it is the blowback from pushing XSD Schema through that has been one factor in a little more auditory receptivity on W3C's part. They now hear that there are other games in town. That is an important lesson, whether it has been taken to heart willingly or has been accepted grudgingly.
The XSD Schema scenario is one reason, apart from having an interest in both XSLT and XQuery, why I have tried to make time to comment on the XQuery family of specs.
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|