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

RE: a standards story

• To: 'Elliotte Rusty Harold' <elharo@m...>, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: a standards story
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:58:11 -0500

I thought that was why Tim Bray was named the TAG's Ear On XML-Dev.

I can't imagine that the WGs are not aware of the controversies 
specs produce outside the W3C. The problem is, at what point does 
the check and balance become affective?  When are public comments 
invited?  What is the process for handling them?  How far back 
will a spec be rolled given these?   Is it not possible that 
given a "reliable ear", the Director or the TAG or both, 
can send the work back to the WG?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...]

What strikes me as most interesting about this is that people outside 
the working group effectively had veto power over the spec. If it had 
been left to merely the group producing the spec to decide when it 
was done, this would not have happened. I can think of at least two 
major W3C specs that would possibly have been vetoed if people 
outside the working group were allowed to vote, and I can see a few 
more coming down the road. External checks and balances are a good 
thing. The W3C process is sorely lacking a step in the process where 
potential users and implementers have an opportunity to reject an 
entire spec and send it back to the drawing board, even without the 
working group's consent.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: a standards story
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: How to spell "No PSVI" in XSLT 2.0 ?
• Next by Date: Re: a standards story
• Previous by thread: a standards story
• Next by thread: RE: a standards story
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread