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

RE: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms

• To: 'Mike Champion' <mc@x...>, Frank Richards <frichards@s...>
• Subject: RE: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:12:02 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>

And the lack of precision from other specs 
has made creating interoperable applications 
just as difficult plus stretched out the 
time to get that done to years over months, quite 
the opposite result promised.

This is a useless exhaustive thread.  The concepts 
are the prize, and any process we use to get 
these out front in terms we all can agree to 
that works works for everyone.  The ISO vs W3C 
spec clarity thing is just a hobgoblin.  Of course 
we want clarity AND precision.  Heck, who wouldn't.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:05 AM
To: Frank Richards; Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: xml-dev
Subject: Re: RE:  Co-operating with Architectural Forms


2/1/2002 11:05:50 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> 
wrote:

>
>Otherwise, 99% of  the authors on this list 
>for XML and XSLT books would be out of work.

Uhh, if the specs were simple and readable we would simply have to 
make an honest living :~)   I vaguely remember doing that, back in 
the days before XML was the Next Big Thing.  It wasn't so bad ... I'd 
happily go back to a life of honest toil in the vineyards of software 
if clear, simple specs were part of the bargain! <grin>

I completely agree with Frank Richards:


> If the people who have to implement specs can't understand them, 
> the specs won't be implemented. And having to get help from the 
> specifiers here on xml-dev goes against the whole idea of using an 
> ISO spec in the first place: I and any other geek in the world 
> should be able to figure out how to meet a spec, and
> whether an implementation meets that spec, without needing personal 
> guidance from the author or a separate (and specific) book from 
> Oxford University Press.

Or maybe, "the specs won't be implemented in an interoperable 
manner."  *IF* some of these "tight" ISO specs have powerful ideas in 
there somewhere and the world is the poorer because they haven't been 
implemented, recasting them in a form that is readable outside the 
community that devoped them and defining a less "ugly" syntax should 
be a high priority for their advocates. 

• Prev by Date: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by Date: What am I overlooking...?
• Previous by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread