Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working
 From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...> > > > There are plenty of areas in these specs that would really benefit > > > from detailed review and feedback, but saying "I think I > > could design > > > a better language" is not helpful at this stage. > > > > Right. But how about "I don't want to have to deal with all > > 40-odd XSDL > > types in my implementation, please change the Basic > > conformance level"? > > Specific comments such as "I think that an XQuery processor should throw > an error if it encounters an attribute of type xs:NOTATION" are of > course very welcome, if the rationale is given. That seems to illustrate a problem fundamental to the committee design process. In committee, members hash and rehash arguments seemingly endlessly over every point in the specification, but by a political process that depends on the personalities on the committee, their intransigence or lack thereof, their personal and company agendas, and their knowledge or lack thereof of the problem domain, eventually arrive at a compromise. New members on the committee might tip the balance in another direction at any level of detail, resulting in the discard or rethinking of the entire body of work. It is difficult for committees to see such an event as progress. As a consequence, committees develop a hard shell that repels challenges to basic assumptions as a turtle's shell repels predators. In the end, nothing is so precious to a committee as its hard-won consensus, as, in truth, committee members often cannot even recall the chain of reasoning, politics and personality that led them to a particular conclusion. A reviewer of committee work, on the other hand, is often in the dark about the consequences of committee decisions until the entire process has unfolded. A "Holy [expletive deleted]!" comment at that stage cannot penetrate the committee's shell, and the committee work product marches on of its own momentum. The w3 process seems fundamentally flawed. That designers fall in love with their own designs is a given, but the community at large should be given an opportunity to weigh the merits of alternative designs before a 'standard' is cast in stone. Standards should be based on existing practice; failing that, there should be ample opportunity for designs to compete. Bob 
|
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
|
|||||||||
