[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org> wrote:
| 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.
True. Eternal vigilance is the price of proper Damage Control.
| Whether or not one considers namespaces or XSDL types "broken",
| they've created considerable challenges for almost everyone,
Love the euphemism.
| 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.
You think? Well, XML Namespaces never made it past WD while the old
WG/SIG lasted. Then came recharter time, the naysayers were quietly
pruned, and lo the WD sailed through to Rec in short order. This is
called <gong>"W3C Process"</gong>, I believe.
The operative word is attrition.
|
