Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: J'accuse (was re: opposition to ISO XML?)
 1. ISO bueaucracy is not demonstrably worse than consortium burearcracy and antics. ISO has better processes and more practice at managing standards development. Internet time is a myth and it is tougher month by month to get a W3C project finished. 2. The potential of whims concern some, but so far, these get worked out in implementation. The consortium members ignore whims and get on with what they want to do. Unfortunately, this also means that the W3C specs become less binding and less authoritative. The software carries the burden of stability. 3. ISO and W3C maintain different profiles of SGML now. So far, no one has been seriously injured. It doesn't do much for the problem of citation but citation again, is a lawyerese problem. Namespaces can screw that over by conflating name and location then insisting the namespace names a semantic instead of naming a choice of an interface, but the PUBLIC id is still there for those who know how to use it wisely and the SYSTEM id is there for those who need to apply it. What I like about ISO is that it looks very hard at issues such as adding new features. It is NOT a technology incubator. It ignores trivial innovations. Since these are usually vendor-specific anyway, it doesn't stop them. They just can't be cited without a sole source justification. ISO shouldn't rubberstamp; it should be the authority that can freeze the spec into a standard. That is a control on what gets released under what named set of resources, not what innovations can be made locally. "Dim-witted government procurement departments" are responsible for ensuring the airliners we fly are safe, the electricity we use is on, the water we drink is uncontaminated, our armed forces are well-equipped, and so on. Law is written for reliability and predictability: aka, standards for services. Caveat emptor because the vendor is only as obligated as these standards require them to be aware. It is the pace of change and the variations of the technology specifications that are beginning to concern much larger groups than these departments. How many kinds of trees are there in the XML specs? How much time do we devote to explaining that the InfoSet is not the definitive model even if we think it should be? How many checkboxes do we have to add to a GUI to cope? The Los Angeles Times, November 27, 2000, has a piece on the complexity issue of software. We know the moan: "too many notes, Mozart!" The author says this is old news in the computer science community. He is right. We keep trying to come up with ways to manage complexity and keep hitting the problem that our ways to manage have to be managed have to be managed have to be managed... and information theory outs Maxwell's Demon one more time. Given how long we campaigned to make markup part of the solution of complexity management, it is disappointing to realize that the proliferation of options in XML and its siblings is now a source of failure. We might do well to pay attention to the "dim-wits" if by our relentless spinning of our propellors we keep making their jobs harder. After all, we can't expect "dim-wits" to protect our interests if we continue to befuddle them. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h From: David Megginson [mailto:david@m...] There are three alternatives: (a) ISO takes over control of the spec from the W3C, so that it's stable but difficult to change and buried in bureaucracy; (b) the W3C continues to control the spec (with an ISO rubber-stamp), so that it's easy to change unstable and subject to the W3C director's whims; or (c) ISO and the W3C maintain different, competing versions of XML. I think that (a) would be problematic and (c) would be disasterous (what would XML-conformance mean?), while (b) -- which most people seem to be suggesting -- would be simply dishonest (somewhat akin to companies submitting proprietary specs as W3C NOTEs to trick customers into thinking they're Web standards). I don't doubt that we would be able to use an ISO rubber-stamp to trick dim-witted government procurement departments into approving XML for internal use, but they won't really be getting what they expect from an International Standard -- something that has been developed deliberately and (painfully) slowly by a team of international representatives and is guaranteed to be very stable. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
