Re: [xml-dev] Requirements of the editor of a working group that isdevel

[Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>]

On Nov 13, 2012, at 8:32 AM, Costello, Roger L. wrote:

> Hi Folks,
> 
> Suppose that you are part of a group of people developing a new XML markup language.
> 
> One person is designated as the editor.
> 
> I recommend that that person (a) be a SuperProgrammer, and (b) is required to single-handedly implement a reference implementation of the markup language.
> 
snip

It seems to me you are over-specifying without sufficient analysis.  Certainly it's appropriate to demonstrate that a spec is implementable (W3C rules require this before a spec becomes a Recommendation).  However, do you know enough about all possible XML markup languages to recommend that each be implemented by one person?  Even if so, why does that one person have to be the Editor?  Depending on how the group divides up the work, the Editor may have so much "editorial" work that a better implementation might be produced by someone else on the team.  If the idea is that the implementation has to be possible by *one* person who is extremely busy with other things already, that might be neat, but do you really know enough to *recommend* that?  

Also, I'm not sure I want a single "reference implementation"?  I prefer the W3C's idea of two (or more) interoperable implementations (by different people/groups). 

> 
> I cite two examples of working groups that met this requirement:

snip

> 
> Adhere to this requirement and you will have a successful development of the markup language. Don't adhere to this requirement and you will likely fail or it will be extremely expensive or both.

Two successful examples don't provide enough support for a general rule such as the one you're proposing.  Are you also suggesting that other markup languages either failed, were extremely expensive, or both (and, if they did, that the Editor not being the sole implementor of an implementation was the cause)?

--Frank