• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 08:42:36 +0000
• In-reply-to: <opro0w0xi6ezizxn@s...>
• References: <20030511172906.6BFC3134184@b...> <opro0w0xi6ezizxn@s...>

Mike Champion <mc@x...> wrote:

| The other reason that people should "spend time reading broken W3C 
| specs" is that few of us really have the luxury of ignoring the 
| downstream implications of a spec that is widely supported by the 
| major players. 

True.  Eternal vigilance is the price of proper Damage Control.
 
| Whether or not one considers namespaces or XSDL types "broken", 
| they've created considerable challenges for almost everyone, 

Love the euphemism.

| and perhaps some of these could have been avoided if more people 
| "laid down in the road" and demanded more implementation and 
| interoperability experience before these specs were made into 
| Recommendations. 

You think?  Well, XML Namespaces never made it past WD while the old
WG/SIG lasted.  Then came recharter time, the naysayers were quietly
pruned, and lo the WD sailed through to Rec in short order.  This is
called <gong>"W3C Process"</gong>, I believe. 

The operative word is attrition.
  

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Document oriented XML Binding framework needed
• Next by Date: Re: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working
• Previous by thread: Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
• Next by thread: Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread