Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
That could be an example of a low quality process. One goes to organizations often precisely because one gets an acceptable process. Even if they take time, it may be time well worth the investment. I note Kendall Clark's article on this topic on XML.COM this week. If he wanted control, he should have built a proprietary application. Nothing compels him to let go and claims that a market cannot be created or sustained without submitting to the 'community' are easily refuted. It is a choice of where one starts and what one wants to own on the other side of the process. len From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@d...] > his strategic blunder was to assume he could > work openly without being under the protection of > the policies of an organization that would ... No. His blunder was in using imprecise language to specify something, and then being inconsistent about the interpretation of those ambiguities. RSS 2.0 isn't a spec or standard. It was an essay written with a couple of weeks -- yes, less than a month -- from those who scrambled to be heard, and mostly (like 2/3 comments accpeted) were. It's an essay that is not open to editorial clarification. Too bad. Often the hard part of working in the open is knowing when to let go. Dave's inability to do so has led many reasonable people to start from ground zero. I expect interop to be maintained.
|
