[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yeah, it gets old tossin' TV sets into the pool,
so now we sing songs badly and loudly and laugh a lot
until the security guys show up because people are
complaining about the noise. It does happen ;-).
I gave those two examples because they are different.
I'm not asking for the dirt, but for people to note
simplicity isn't the only requirement but if complexity
is a problem, take a look at the semantics you are
being asked to support and ask yourself if you
can cut that list down. A simple metric is if you
get a request for a feature and someone can't write
at least pseudocode in n minutes to show how that
would be implemented, toss it. (It doesn't have
to be good code, just credible).
I'd prefer SVG to VML but the VML dll is there on
86% of the world's desktops and doesn't require a
plugin, so it is useful. It isn't robust and it
isn't enough. I do wish MS would finish it and
make an SVG app out of it. (At least make sure the
samples in the tutorials WORK!!) But
for basic hypertextable vector diagrams, it works.
It simply sux when you start trying to scale it,
make intelligent boxes, etc. And so the feature
creep begins....
But back to the program:
a) Simplicity isn't always.
b) Sometimes we really do have to let it get out
of control before we know what to control.
c) We must learn to know a good thing when we see it
and let it thrive if it can.
d) Leadership makes a big difference where the quality
of the team varies uncontrollably.
Unfortunately, we became enamored of the fame game and
the standards game was the way to get fame. Maybe it
is better that two or three different implementations
fight for awhile BEFORE we write a standard, but definitely,
let two or three specs fight it out. That actually is
what the submission process provides for, so it is possible
that some process adjustments (blind submissions, blind
reviews, multiple review teams, etc.) would help, things
aren't that bad at the W3C, and we are whining but learning.
<aside>One pet project for the semantic web would be an
app that aggregates 'lessons learned' or the 'debate by topic'
from these lists. Alan G., that is what semantic aggegators
do. The fact of it being a list or a blog is a red herring.</aside>
XML worked because we already knew what was necessary in
the main, and it came down to thrashing on important details,
but little invention. Leadership was critical and we had it.
When I see the "Tim Bray or Jon Bosak or whoever 'invented XML'"
I turn red, but I always transform that into 'lead the effort'
and I feel better because that is true and richly deserved.
len
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin.berjon@expway.fr]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> That and a bit of maturity from the professionals.
Maturity? Gee Len, you want us all out of a job or what? :)
> How often
> do we go into these meetings prepared to skewer a submission
> because of the source? By example, wasn't the original
> submission for XSD from Microsoft a lot simpler than XSD?
> Wasn't the VML submission a lot simpler than SVG?
There are a few things about XDR (assuming that's what you mean? the
previous one was quite seriously more complex IIRC) that I dislike but
overall it's generally better than WXS for sure. Regarding VML, it sure
was simple but not only in the positive connotations of the word. I
wasn't there at the time but I don't think the SVG WG had anything
against Microsoft, in fact VML was pretty much integrated into SVG, just
as PGML. The problems that SVG went were pretty much Version One and
Space Odyssey.
Thankfully the mobile industry is providing the impetus to rationalize
all that.
> After all, it's fun to travel, see one's name in the trades
> and on the covers of the specs, get lecturing gigs, get
> to drink with one's heros, and destroy hotel rooms without
> having to learn new material.
It's always nice to see some great people, and WGs sure have their share
of those. But every hotel room looks the same these days so thrashing
them gets a bit tired after the third time around.
|
