[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
And the paradox is resolved by understanding
that it is not a measurement (data) but a function
that is being evaluated. The myth of unnecessary
granularity.
If we do the least possible, just for argument's
sake, would a vector graphics language need
any other shape elements beyond path and glyph?
Should we have a framework that only manipulates
the string values for vectors, or should we have
collections with indexed access?
Well, more and both. One aspect of spec writing
and features is to be very clear about what level
of the system/subsystem one is specing. We always
seem to have a devil of a time getting people with
different backgrounds to understand that an XML
language spec in and of itself doesn't provide
much in the way of interoperability without a
runtime spec to go with it.
Will we spec XML languages for XAML primitives?
The browser created opportunities for competitors.
It also limited them because the boundary between
the browser and the operating system isn't real.
It is politically convenient but not necessarily
technically advantageous. It created a myth of
superior engineering that was and is a fraud but
it made such a fine free condiment that lots of
people came to the party for the freebies. Now
it is just a nuisance because like using free
food to open a bar, once one has a steady and
very large crowd, it is unnecessary overhead but
the crowd believes they have a right to it.
One reason a spec goes out of control is the
politics of consensus (who understands what
when and how loud or soft are they). 80/20
is a crowbar and a cudgel when that becomes
politically difficult.
len
From: Robert Koberg [mailto:rob@koberg.com]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Then the problem becomes if by using that approach,
> you are stuck in the place you get to, 80/20 can
> hose you. The HTML browser is a good example of
> a cul de sac. SVG may be another one.
The last 20% reminds me of something a teacher threw out in a freshman
philosophy class. And this goes to support Eric's point that is a myth.
[hoping I remember correctly]
A philosopher (Xeno?) put forth a arrow could never reach its target
because before it could hit it, it had to go half the distance. Before
it got half way it had to get halfway to the halfway point -- ad infinitem.
-but it does get there-
Oh well, back to work.
|
