• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: Standards and Namespaces - tangling two threads
• From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Bill_de_h=D3ra?= <bill@d...>
• Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:26:46 +0100
• Cc: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <oprpz00gitezizxn@localhost>
• References: <oprpz00gitezizxn@localhost>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

Mike Champion wrote:

> Stepping up to the pulpit, here's an attempt to say what 'extreme 
> specwriting' would imply:
> 
> * Analysis paralysis is pointless -- There's not enough "science" now 
> for solid "engineering", so codify existing practice that actually works.
> 
> * Avoid "Big Up Front Specs" - Seek to agree only on what is minimally 
> necessary for a business collaboration or technical interoperability.
> 
> * Keep it simple: When it gets ugly, re-factor.  Better to break the 
> implementations of early adopters than to have the whole effort be for 
> nought because nobody can understand it except the members of the 
> original committee.
> 
> * Have a tight iteration cycle of specs, implementation, testing, and 
> refactoring/rewriting.  If it causes more pain than gain, it fails the 
> test.

Don't start with a spec, start with a test.

Bill de hÓra

• References:
  • Standards and Namespaces - tangling two threads
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Vocabulary Combination and optional namespaces
• Next by Date: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• Previous by thread: Standards and Namespaces - tangling two threads
• Next by thread: Re: Standards and Namespaces - tangling two threads
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread