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

80/20(was Re: modeling, validating )

• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: 80/20(was Re: modeling, validating )
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:28:25 -0400
• In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0306190027190.2044-100000@s...>
• References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030618215608.03279ae8@s...>

[pulling a bit worth pondering out of the previous and largely dead thread]

At 12:28 AM 6/19/2003 -0400, Rich Salz wrote:
>To me it fits in the 80 part of 80/20, but maybe my viewpoint is too
>narrow.

The dangerous part of the 80/20 story is that people seem to focus on the 
minor losses involved in getting 80% of the capabilities, not the major 
sacrifices involved in reaching the 20% of work behind those capabilities.

Most people still seems to agree that recent specs provide roughly 80% of 
what they wanted, with some significant variation.  (Schemas and Web 
Services seem to be the primary places where people regularly say "That is 
a completely different thing from what I wanted.")

The other side of the equation is trickier, but I'd guess we've moved up 
from XML 1.0's 80/20 (80/30, perhaps?) to a range from 80/50 to 80/100, 
which isn't nearly as exciting.

• References:
  • Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by Date: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Previous by thread: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by thread: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread