[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Why informal specs usually win

• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:30:02 -0600

david@m... wrote:
> 
> Informal specs fit into the Worse-is-Better pattern [1]: a less formal
> spec that many people can understand easily will generally be adopted
> and implemented much more successfully than a more formal spec that
> fewer people can understand, despite the disadvantage that the less
> formal spec probably contains ambiguities, inconsistencies and
> omissions.

This is all true, but it isn't complete:

formal + hard-to-understand = low adoption, few bugs
informal + easy-to-understand = high adoption, many bugs

What about:

formal + easy-to-understand?

Let's not forget that formalisms are educational tools. They help us to
understand things. Nobody argues that XML should throw out its BNF or that
XML-based languages should throw away their DTDs (or other schemas). In
other words, formalisms help you to understand *if you know the
formalism*. Prose would be easier to understand than BNF for someone who
didn't know BNF, at first, but over the long term, it would be harder to
follow.

This implies that the responsibility of the W3C is not to avoid formality,
but to educate people on a few, well-designed, easy-to-learn formalisms
which can serve to increase understanding. In other words, this is one of
those short-term/long-term decisions that drive everything.

 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"You have the wrong number."
"Eh? Isn't that the Odeon?"
"No, this is the Great Theater of Life. Admission is free, but the 
taxation is mortal. You come when you can, and leave when you must. The 
show is continuous. Good-night." -- Robertson Davies, "The Cunning Man"

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why informal specs usually win
    • From: <david@m...>

• References:
  • RE: OSS vs W3C? was: Next Round
    • From: "Matthew Sergeant (EML)" <Matthew.Sergeant@e...>
  • Re: OSS vs W3C? was: Next Round
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Why informal specs usually win
    • From: <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Using XSL as a Validation Language
• Next by Date: How to use xml:lang? (was: DDML Documentation Capabilities)
• Previous by thread: Why informal specs usually win
• Next by thread: Re: Why informal specs usually win
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread