Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: standards body parallel
 ----- Original Message ----- From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...> > Actually, being afraid of being embarrassed (especially in public) is > extremely common in Western and corporate culture. ... > I have mixed feelings about 100% closed WGs. On the one hand, I'd love > to have more access to WG members and be able to ask, why was this done > this way? Did you consider this? That would allow me to give better > feedback. (Mailing lists are sometimes responsive, sometimes not.) > > On the other hand, I certainly understand the reasons behind them. If the only reason why WGs are closed is that people don't want to show their mistakes ( this is very understandable ), I think this problem has some easy solution. For example: Make monthly anonymous digests of closed mailing lists, removing the "From:" field and all the names mentioned in the body and then publish the digest. If the real purpose of closing the rationale / discussions behind W3C papers is that simple - I volunteer to write the appropriate perl script. If the real purpose is that 'outer space' better not to know about the way W3C produces the 'specifications' - well, perl script is not a solution of course. The 'softer' solution could be to ask WGs ( or some 'invited' people ) to publish a 'hand-made' monthly digests ( like XML Deviant at xml.com does for 'opened lists - I like it. It is very politically correct but informative ;-). I think that many people who are currently bashing W3C will be glad to volunteer and will do a good job on such a digesting. Rgds.Paul. PS. I'm of course not talking about myself for this digesting activity, not only because of my terrible English, but also because I think my digests will be something like : "In the attempt of saving some legacy papers, the stuff discussed on this WG during this month has not too much sense..." ;-) Or something like that ;-) PPS. Let's just face it. What do we *really* have in 'standard' shape except the XML spec ? Nothing. Almost nothing. This situation was acceptable 2 years ago. Even Silicon Valley startups ( which are known for wasting time and money for years with no practical results ) have to make a deadlines sometimes. I think many people will be glad to help W3C. Rejecting those ( free ) resources for years in the situation when deadlines keep failing - isn't it strange ? 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
