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

W3C Conspiracy Theories

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: W3C Conspiracy Theories
• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:37:47 -0400
• In-reply-to: <vg3vbv0p88jjqd7dedju3f0rof1lgjddkn@4...>
• References: <20030511172906.6BFC3134184@b...><opro0w0xi6ezizxn@s...><8anubvsq7v6r4bfopm631p5rjt100li4ha@4...><16063.32051.866119.903922@m...><vg3vbv0p88jjqd7dedju3f0rof1lgjddkn@4...>

Arjun Ray writes:

 > | before the big reorg in Montreal -- the REC was delayed at the W3C 
 > | level, not the WG level. 
 > 
 > I don't remember when Montreal was, or what it had to do with anything,
 > sorry.

It was at the August conference that later became "Extreme Markup"
that the XML activity was reorganized and rechartered.

 > And in my notes, I have this:

 >  Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:34:19 -0700
 >  From: Jon.Bosak@e... (Jon Bosak)

The rechartering and reorganization did not take place until later
that August -- the draft that Jon announced in this message was one
that we (the original WG members) had approved, and it was very close
to the final REC.  I'm not suggesting that everyone was thrilled with
it, or with the W3C staff.

 > I note that Jon's 3 Aug announcement wasn't even the last WD! Here
 > is a WD dated 16 September (which is after the SIG closed):
 > 
 >  http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-xml-names-19980916

The subsequent WD's were just minor editorial changes as the spec
belatedly snaked its way through the whole W3C release process.  We
were ready to go in August, but it took a long time mainly because the
reorg threw everything into chaos for a while and it took us time to
get going again.  It is true that the spec was technically orphaned,
but nearly everyone from the old XML WG (everyone who chose to be) was
still involved in the XML Plenary, which did discussed and reviewed
the final release.  Can you name anyone from the original XML WG who
asked to be involved in the new XML plenary but was not allowed to be?

As for the SIG, again, it's hard to remember all the details, but I
know that some people (probably including me) argued that the SIG no
longer sense -- WG's could go straight to XML-DEV, which had open
membership (unlike the closed SIG) and had already proven itself
technically capable of dealing with the issues.

Note that I'm not defending or attacking the W3C structure or staff or
the 1998 reorganization, but I do want to set the record straight
about any conspiracy theories.  The biggest problem with any
conspiracy theory is the few organizations are well enough organized
to pull off what people accuse them off (much less keep it secret
afterwards).


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson, david@m..., http://www.megginson.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: W3C Conspiracy Theories
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>

• References:
  • Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
• Next by Date: RE: nostalgia (was RE: Ten new XQuery)
• Previous by thread: Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
• Next by thread: Re: W3C Conspiracy Theories
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread