I believe that this criterion
(sometimes called the "thunk factor") is a completely erroneous way of
evaluating specifications that fails to take into account other
factors.
Joe
| Please, any commentaries on ISO 11179 usage either for
or against.
|
| Bryan Rasmussen
I work on a project
which uses the UBL Naming & Design Rules. Those are
based on the ebXML
CCTS, which in turn is based on ISO 11179 (which as such
does not contain
anything about XML). So I need to read and understand:
ISO 11179 Part 1 -
32 pages
ISO 11179 Part 2 - 16 pages
ISO 11179 Part 3 - 108 pages
ISO
11179 Part 4 - 16 pages
ISO 11179 Part 5 - 20 pages
ISO 11179 Part 6 - 72
pages
ebXML Core Components Technical Specification - 113 pages
UBL Naming
& Design Rules - 104 pages
So I have one critique:
bloat.
Marc
(Now, I could count the pages for this other project
where I have to
understand XML + XSD + SOAP + WSDL + WS-Security +
WS-Reliability + ... ,
come to think of it, the naming stuff above might not
be that bad at all
:-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The
xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS
<http://www.oasis-open.org>
The
list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To
subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
