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

Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 17:47:26 +1000
• References: <<5.1.0.14.0.20020510130531.01665d98@n...> <<5.1.0.14.0.20020510123018.03dba770@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020510123018.03dba770@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020510130531.01665d98@n...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020510141922.0360dea8@n...> <1021066628.988.2526.camel@l...>

 From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
 
> I far prefer direct conversation to false politeness.

I am worse than Simon for heel-nipping, and I like Jonathan and
Simon personally (Jonathon suddenly sang a great Appalacian song to me
once, to my delight, but Simon's wife made a toy from the Schematron
mascot, so I am not sure who is the more charming), but I do share
Simon's disquiet about the direction of W3C specifications: it is hard
to think of one that has been modest, straightforward and small-player-enhancing
for the last two years. 

W3C is fundamentally a large-vendor-mediating organization, and there
is no reason to expect that the result of that mediation (within certain
parameters of review for i18n and accessibility and Web-architecture)
will be good for the non-commercial community or small players, who
have an especial interest in stability not churn for fundamental standards.

(How could W3C be made into a less large-vendor-dominated organization?
Well, if every WG had at least 33% of votes from non-W3C, non-commercial
organizations -- excluding academics receiving funding from large companies --
and if smaller vendors could band together to hire representatives -- the
recent rules for W3C was that WG members had to be fulltime employees
of a W3C member--, and if at least 33% of WG members had to come from
W3C members outside USA, that would be a start.  With no rules like that
in place, of course W3C-developed technology will develop along certain
predictable lines, favouring large, commercial, Western interests.)

Cheers
Rick 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• References:
  • RE: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • RE: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Patent non-proliferation and disarmament
• Next by Date: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Previous by thread: Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
• Next by thread: Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread