[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com (DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)) writes:
>>I think the hub - and likely multiple hubs - has to be allowed to
>>evolve, not derived by committee and imposed.
>
>Well, that gets back to the motive behind my original question: where
>does a hub architecture come from, if not from a group of people
>representing various interests gathering together to determine their
>common interest--a committee?
I'd like that committee to appear later in the process, not early.
XLink was a poor idea because there was a notion that we already had the
linking expertise necessary to build such a thing, even before we saw
how the medium for these links - XML - would turn out.
On fundamentals, I think XLink was wrong to treat 'linking' as a generic
field of endeavor as well, so I'm not sure any single committee, no
matter how diverse its membership, makes sense in any case.
I'd rather see gatekeepers doing this work than trusting it to kings and
councils.
>To reiterate something from my last
>post, I realize that no committee can come up with something that
>works for absolutely everyone. But, when you have something evolving
>on its own, completely organically, it evolves into tag soup, and
>commercial enterprises don't want to use tag soup. They're nervous
>enough about the differences between RSS .9, 1.0, 2.0, and Atom.
Well, to get philosophical about it, the notion that there has to be one
format, even if that format is only for interchange (which it rarely
is), speaks volumes about our fears and very badly about our initiative.
|
