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

RE: The waterfall model lives? (was Re: The subsetti

• To: 'Mike Champion' <mc@x...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: The waterfall model lives? (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:23:31 -0600

Is accusing someone of using the waterfall model something 
like mentioning Hitler?

Before they touch the spec, Mike, they need to show numbers 
that really demonstrate why they need the change.  These 
numbers can't be a consequence of the framework or the 
languages they choose for implementation.  It affects too 
many people and code bases.  Conservatism in enabling 
change to the core is warranted.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...]

Still, I don't agree with the argument that the XML 1.x  specification is the fixed 
point around which the "XML world" (broadly defined) should revolve.

It reminds me of the "waterfall model" of software design/development

• Prev by Date: Re: re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Next by Date: Re: Could someone give a precise definition to these terms and the relationships between them?
• Previous by thread: Could someone give a precise definition to these terms and the relationships between them?
• Next by thread: No Standard Before Its Time (WAS RE: Parsing Performance)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread