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

RE: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)

• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:32:33 -0400

At 03:11 PM 7/19/2001 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
><notaBene>I'm not in favor of closed groups that
>go off and plan the future in secret.  Never have
>been, but the W3C is the owner
>of XML, does as it thinks, and in the case of a
>major release version, that group would be a
>consideration.  Given the effect on other
>parts of the web architecture, it would be
>prudent to get that in motion if it is an
>inevitability before serious consideration
>or heated debates over a major features
>release.</notaBene>

My fear, is that we have seen a tendency of late for even intra-W3C 
development and communication to be insular -- making impossible or 
improbable the chances for success where one group has been *given* the 
requirement of being dependent on another group, who then chooses at will 
to accept or disregard the requirements of the dependent group at will, and 
often for less-than-technical reasons.

The W3C may be a ocean, but the ports between her islands certainly need to 
be open.

(OK, I have sailing on the brain, but you get the point).

Ann
Ann Navarro, WebGeek Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com/
Now in print! Effective Web Design, 2nd Edition
http://www.webgeek.com/books/
What's on my mind? http://www.snorf.net/blog/	

• References:
  • RE: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Next by Date: Re: Closing Blueberry
• Previous by thread: RE: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Next by thread: RE: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread