Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 10:30 -0700, Michael Champion wrote:
> 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
I guess then that the W3C process could step in here? Note the
emphasis on *this is a working draft*, proceed at your own peril?
If the 'Extreme Spec' (XS?) isn't done in the time (but is proven
to work by such as Mike Kay) then it remains a working draft with
all the risk associated?
I guess the other aspects mentioned (I like the Linus inner circle idea)
would still hold, in spades in some cases. You need a strong lead to
the group getting bogged down as must happen.
Leaner, smaller specs could be a side effect.
> 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.
If we had a spec, with WD plastered all over it,
addressing only the top n features, implemented twice,
2 years ago, would people still react the same way?