[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> On 8/16/05, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
>> > No. We need XML Schema so that other WGs know what not to do.
>>
>> OK, so what exactly did they do wrong, and how can other WGs avoid doing
>> the
>> same?
I would also suggest two process improvements
1) Tough and regular layering review (e.g. by TAG?) to refactor the spec
and groups as they grow. XML Schemas is under-layered and large =
spaghetti.
2) Maximum two-year membership of working groups (2 years on, 2 years
off). This will encourage smaller specs and encourage fresh eyes on
problems.
Also, long-term membership of working group means that members, who are
concentrating on doing their thing, may become ignorant of the state of
the art in the outside world. Also, over-competitive people will be cycled
out. The problem with large groups is not kitchen-sinkism but the greater
chance that someone with an attitude that is counter-productive for a
standards group can attend or dominate: these attitudes can include "I
will not vote for anything that might help a competitor rather than me"
and "I can divide and conquer to get what I want".
Actually, I think it is high time that the whole XML stack was refactored.
All these farty little mini-layers such as include, id, base, and so
on need to be rolled into a layer with a hint that a processor that does
not understand them should reject the document. Grammars should be
superceded by paths.
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
|
