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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] NextXML.org - a working space.

After all the discussion, I tend to like Elliotte's approach best (http://cafe.elharo.com/xml/xml-2-0/).  I work on long term archival standards in the A&D space (http://www.asd-stan.org/Lotar.html) and we design in the standards the notion of "conformance classes".

My interepretation of Elliotte's approach is that he wants a conformance class of XML - a strict subset (or at least with minimal extensions), but a subset that carries official weight that can be a coded to and conformance with tested and measured.

I agree that such an approach would have a high likelihood of success and has the advantage of (large?) compatibility with existing tools and processes - not too disruptive, but offering significant productivity to the community.

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:17 AM, <BillClare3@aol.com> wrote:
We are a very disparate group here, coming from many different backgrounds, many with a very particular focus. 
Consensus, as you say, is difficult and indeed impossible.  Consensus in a variety of smaller areas seems feasible.  For a more comprehensive approach, there will need to evolve some decision process with something like a "chief architect".
One of the worst dangers here is that support from a commercial supplier of browsers will be necessary, and they will be motivated to run away with early and incomplete approaches.   
Maybe the exercise can be organized usefully though.
Organization is fundamental and I'm sure will, and certainly must, evolve in unforeseeable ways.  The following illustrates one possibility for a general framework. 
As a starting point there seems to be two fundamentally different camps; both useful, but in quite different ways, but needing separate areas of development:
* Those who advocate incremental, evolutionary and reasonably compatible change in a variety of areas.
   Here what is needed is a series of topics that can be easily created and evolved towards some sort of formal recommendation.  Here only partial consensus is needed;  e.g., I suspect two, hopefully complementary, approaches for comments will evolve.
* Those who advocate radical, revolutionary change, albeit with compatibility considerations.
   Here there needs to an outline of topics to be developed.   
   The latter is more difficult. Separate topics for objectives, requirements, specifications, design principles, design issues, document guidelines etc. is an obvious starting point.  In the long run, these can evolve from discussion entries to an area for formal resolution and public documentation.
... snip ...

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

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

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS