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

RE: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?

• To: 'Vladimir Gapeyev' <vgapeyev@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:37:06 -0500

No.  Hard numbers are soft because one has to 
start with requirements for the numbers.  The 
question is really, how should one select a 
team to create a standard to ensure success 
by some measure of success?

I start with two positions:

1. Specifications and standards are different animals. 
A standard is for a product in an established market. A 
specification is for a product that does not yet exist 
in an established market.  This makes the rules for 
selecting the team quite different.

2. There are large bodies of standards groups that are 
not web-centric.  Standards and specifications for 
the web exist in a world that is quite different from 
the majority body where a standard or specification is 
for products with a small and local user base.  To do 
this with a large sample size, you will want to include 
many organizations beyond the W3C.

In other words, pick a metric for success first.  XML 
succeeds wildly and quickly.  Why?  Markup was an 
established market. OTOH, syndication is a 
market being established.  The success of the teams 
varies and the specification bifurcated quickly.  One 
can say with some measure of truth that RSS is a 
'failure' as a standard but 'successful' as a 
specification for establishing a market.  It is only 
now in need of a standard.  Which team has done the 
best job of doing that, and what is the professional 
standing of its members?

Keep in mind, that's a sample size of 2.

len



From: Vladimir Gapeyev [mailto:vgapeyev@s...]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> There are more failures from the self-constituted groups of amateur 
> standards writers than there are successes.  You are going to quote back 
> to me the few notable successes from the amateurs but they are fewer 
> than their counterparts.  Don't confuse myth for math.

I presume hard numbers are what tells apart myth from math.  Are there any 
numbers to back up this claim?  (That's a question out of genuine -- even 
though amateur -- interest, really!)

• Prev by Date: RE: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Next by Date: RE: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Previous by thread: RE: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Next by thread: Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread