[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: IsWeb 2.0

• To: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
• Subject: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: IsWeb 2.0 the new XML?
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:22:19 +0200
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <e3a5cb2c0508191030af38a5a@m...>
• References: <1124469968.3639.2.camel@marge> <1124470975.3639.12.camel@marge> <e3a5cb2c0508191030af38a5a@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)

Michael Champion wrote:
> There has been talk (I can't find a public reference so I won't say
> more, maybe Liam can?) of a new type of group that would do more
> experimental  "design by committee" work that would result in a
> specification or other work product that had no claims to be a
> standard.  Presumably a regular working group could then pick up such
> a spec, refactor / refine / test  / clarify it and then see it through
> to Recommendation status.

I don't think they have been officially announced, but they've been 
discussed in public plenty of times, so while I have no pointer they're 
not confidential.

Those groups would be called XGs (I can't recall what the 'X' meant, 
assuming it meant anything), formerly known as Incubator Groups. The 
idea is pretty much what Mike says, the XG would be limited to a one 
year charter, at the end of which it would have to prove that it's 
produced (or able to produce) good quality tech that's a real industry 
standard, etc. There was a mention of XGs being able to produce 
documents that could then go straight into LC as soon as a WG is 
created, though I think that's a bad idea.

They are being modelled based in part on experience gathered doing the 
first Device Independence WG (which has since been rechartered as a 
"proper WG"), and the XBC WG, both of which had similar constraints.

So yes, this notion of extreme specwriting is indeed being explored, 
however while I think that XGs are a very good idea, I don't think they 
are sufficient to address the endemic problems of the current WGs.

-- 
Robin Berjon
   Senior Research Scientist
   Expway, http://expway.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
    • From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>

• References:
  • RE: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
  • Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: IsWeb 2.0 the new XML?
• Next by Date: XML 2005 reminder - time to write your paper or submit your proposal
• Previous by thread: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: IsWeb 2.0 the new XML?
• Next by thread: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread