[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?
In a message dated 27/10/2002 04:46:28 GMT Standard Time, tpassin@c... writes: Sometimes it seems to me that most of the XML-related Recs/Specs that Tom, It may equally be the phase of development. As I understand the history, James was mostly involved in the spec development process at a time when the best bits of SGML/DSSSL were being identified and simplified. So, simplistically, James was in the win-win situation. He could take the best of SGML etc, as had been identified in practical use by a community, and distil it for the masses. Others now have the more difficult task of taking the distillate and addressing new issues and adding new functionality. Having said that, I wouldn't want to excuse the reality that some things that have been claimed in the recent past as "new science" are either "bad science" or "inadequately developed science". The fact that one aspect of "new science" is metastasing throughout other W3C specs is, in my view at least, a strategic mistake. Andrew Watt
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|