OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: [xml-dev] Is Web 2.0

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • To: davep@dpawson.co.uk
  • Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: [xml-dev] Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
  • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@gmail.com>
  • Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:30:41 -0700
  • Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=eVyRp6QEnU/5A86zN+3ElDL5RZdPExXZc/aabEZss5rhEg2pu627o9skp5MJcUzOJS2FLbq98mHnFzddM9Rp1lM61MIhqrgJ0slbt25bs0H8M9Es6Shydn7o3u9w6YIbYDbJs0SlojmulXnIk59M/IN1MuXfjSDli4ZTEhYalhk=
  • In-reply-to: <1124470975.3639.12.camel@marge>
  • References: <1124469968.3639.2.camel@marge> <1124470975.3639.12.camel@marge>

On 8/19/05, Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk> wrote:

> I wonder if the lessons of XP could be applied here? Given a two year
> cycle, prioritise the required features and deliver what you have at the
> end of the period,
> i.e. down the features list from most to least important.

There has been talk (I can't find a public reference so I won't say
more, maybe Liam can?) of a new type of group that would do more
experimental  "design by committee" work that would result in a
specification or other work product that had no claims to be a
standard.  Presumably a regular working group could then pick up such
a spec, refactor / refine / test  / clarify it and then see it through
to Recommendation status.

Details aside, I think that is one thing that would address some of
the problems noted here, especially Len's long-standing insistence
that "specification" and "standard" be clearly separated in people's

Or to put it differently, "extreme specwriting" is probably going to
be a very useful way to get useful specs written, but there's also the
reality that the whole notion of a "standard" implies a waterfall
process since it is hard to refactor a standard without breaking
applications.  XSD clearly illustrates this -- to go back and fix the
apparent mistakes would create an awful lot of havoc.  Reasonable
people can disagree whether that havoc would be worthwhile to clean up
XSD 1.0, but I don't think anyone disagrees that we really want to
avoid being put in this situation again.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS