[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: Is Web 2.0

  • To: davep@d...
  • Subject: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
  • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
  • Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:30:41 -0700
  • Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=eVyRp6QEnU/5A86zN+3ElDL5RZdPExXZc/aabEZss5rhEg2pu627o9skp5MJcUzOJS2FLbq98mHnFzddM9Rp1lM61MIhqrgJ0slbt25bs0H8M9Es6Shydn7o3u9w6YIbYDbJs0SlojmulXnIk59M/IN1MuXfjSDli4ZTEhYalhk=
  • In-reply-to: <1124470975.3639.12.camel@marge>
  • References: <1124469968.3639.2.camel@marge> <1124470975.3639.12.camel@marge>

w3c xsd mime types
On 8/19/05, Dave Pawson <davep@d...> wrote:

> I wonder if the lessons of XP could be applied here? Given a two year
> cycle, prioritise the required features and deliver what you have at the
> end of the period,
> i.e. down the features list from most to least important.


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.

Details aside, I think that is one thing that would address some of
the problems noted here, especially Len's long-standing insistence
that "specification" and "standard" be clearly separated in people's
minds.

Or to put it differently, "extreme specwriting" is probably going to
be a very useful way to get useful specs written, but there's also the
reality that the whole notion of a "standard" implies a waterfall
process since it is hard to refactor a standard without breaking
applications.  XSD clearly illustrates this -- to go back and fix the
apparent mistakes would create an awful lot of havoc.  Reasonable
people can disagree whether that havoc would be worthwhile to clean up
XSD 1.0, but I don't think anyone disagrees that we really want to
avoid being put in this situation again.

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.