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

Re: OSS vs W3C? was: Next Round

• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• To: "XML Developers' List" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 20:50:22 -0600

"Matthew Sergeant (EML)" wrote:
> 
>         - Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost
> every problem will be characterised quickly, and the fix obvious to someone.
> 
>         If the process just occured on ordinary public mailing lists this
> would be true I think.

That is not true. There were many bugs found in XML months after it was
available on a public mailing list. Characterizing bugs in specifications
is much, much harder than characterizing them in code. It wouldn't be so
hard if the specs were more formal, but that isn't the way things are
going.

 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"You have the wrong number."
"Eh? Isn't that the Odeon?"
"No, this is the Great Theater of Life. Admission is free, but the 
taxation is mortal. You come when you can, and leave when you must. The 
show is continuous. Good-night." -- Robertson Davies, "The Cunning Man"

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Why informal specs usually win
    • From: <david@m...>

• References:
  • RE: OSS vs W3C? was: Next Round
    • From: "Matthew Sergeant (EML)" <Matthew.Sergeant@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Word and XML (was: XML standards coherency and so forth)
• Next by Date: Generating XML
• Previous by thread: Re: OSS vs W3C? was: Next Round
• Next by thread: Why informal specs usually win
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread