Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
No. I like the specs with simple features per spec that I can apply to different problems efficiently. I specifically don't like garbanzo bean salad specs. The problem is to get a spec a customer can cite that does not pull all the other features in by normative reference. I like them even leaner than you. This: XML [check/uncheck] or this ANI/ALI packet support. XML format IAW NENA Specification. [check/uncheck] The second option is money for value. The first option is wasted money. Real solutions for systems required to interoperate; not open systems rant. len -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 13:22, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > >I'm not content with selling the world an enormous mash of features and > >possible combinations of features and leaving it to developers of > >particular applications to sort out which parts are valuable and which > >are trash. > > They have to sort out which features will solve a problem for them > and which are not of use to a particular application. You can't do > that for them. I am your customer. So you _like_ the model where specs contain trillions of features that _you_ get to pick and choose from? I'm sorry Len, but I think you've been selling closed systems for way too long. Those of us out in the open world can't cope with that model, and damn well shouldn't have to - especially on specs from the W3C, which theoretically cares about the useful-because-it's-an-open-model Web. You may be _a_ customer, but you aren't the only one.
|
