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

RE: Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?

• To: 'David Megginson' <david@m...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:04:06 -0600

It's simpler and less political than that, David:

Fewer nodes with each node exhibiting higher competence. 

Higher competence means  eliminating rabbit trails with the 
fewest number of messages; or, simpler, given a set of 
alternatives, selecting the correct choice fastest.

Experience counts but counting and choosing what to 
count are not the same skill.

XML succeeds mostly because people desperately want 
to be innovators and heros and still belong to a group.

len


From: David Megginson [mailto:david@m...]

I cannot claim to have done any proper scientific survey, but I've
noticed a few common characteristics among specs:

1. Simplicity succeeds.
2. Process is poison.
3. Code first, then specify.
4. Almost every new spec fails anyway.

• Prev by Date: Re: About browsers that support XSLT REC 1.0
• Next by Date: Re: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• Previous by thread: Re: Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?
• Next by thread: RE: Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread