Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0
 On 8/19/05, Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...> wrote: > The problem may well not be the process and a process based solution may > not fix it. The simple fact is by its nature, the W3C is spending a lot > of time in experimental areas. They are blazing new ground, and that's a > good thing. It's a good thing if they call it "blazing new ground" (or "leading the Web to its full potential"), but that's a different thing from "creating standards." I don't think the W3C has to choose, but they have to do a better job of labeling. XSD and XQuery and much of the Semantic Web stuff is blazing new ground. XML itself was carving SGML best practice into stone. HTML 4 and DOM L1 were basically about trying to solidify the mud that people were sliding around in. These offer different values, and calling them all Recommendations obscures those values. > Perhaps all we need to change is the attitude and belief that a W3C spec > cannot be allowed to fail. I very strongly agree. Some like XML 1.1 (I have finally seen the light !) were failures from the beginning, others (perhaps DOM is in this category) have served their purpose and should be allowed to totter off into the sunset with dignity. Others such as the core XML specs probably just need some refactoring so that they can be layered/composed/extended more cleanly. But yes, W3C should learn to bury its mistakes, retire the expedient hacks, and keep the successes viable. > In my experience, if half the community is > telling you a spec is good, and half is saying it's not, then the half > deriding the spec is far more likely to be correct and their opinions > need to be given more weight when deciding whether or not to go to REC. Hmmm. If half a community is saying a spec is good and the other half isn't, perhaps they are two communities, one with a use for the spec and the other without? The web services specs or the semantic web specs are obvious examples of those that serve the needs of a subset of the "XML community" but are irrelevant (and somewhat distatesful) to other subsets. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't advance to some sort of recommendation status IMHO. At some point you have to tell the geeks to quit arguing and let the market sort it out. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
