• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Linda van den Brink <lvdbrink@b...>,"'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:15:03 -0500

Absolutely.

Mad Sparks told me once that the business of 
standards was to make money explaining a standard 
once it was published.  Ok for then, but these 
days, if it isn't clear coming out of the 
consortium, it won't get clearer by application. 
If the intent is to let implementors debug it, 
make sure it stays a draft for a long time. 
If a gorilla steps up and says, I need that 
finalized to meet my business model, then insist 
on them putting up some money for technical 
editors under the explicit direction of the 
W3C contact.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Linda van den Brink [mailto:lvdbrink@b...]

It's very often a problem to find resources (i.e. money) for this kind of
thing. It's a matter of deciding that good documentation is a prerequisite
for success. Which in this case it could well be. 

• Prev by Date: RE: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
• Next by Date: Is Schema Equivalence transitive?
• Previous by thread: Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
• Next by thread: Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread