• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: The myth of 80/20
• From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
• Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 09:11:36 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1078420041.24514.152.camel@delleric>
• Organization: liveSTORYBOARD
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F428@h...> <1078419138.24514.146.camel@delleric> <40475F1C.7040603@k...> <1078420041.24514.152.camel@delleric>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Eric van der Vlist wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-03-04 at 17:53, Robert Koberg wrote:
> 
> 
>>>80/20 is fine except that we usually have no measurement to evaluate on
>>>which side of the 80/20 frontier a feature is 
>>
>>
>>sure we do. it is called money
>>
>>-Francisco D'Anconia
>>
>>:)
> 
> 
> Do you really think so? 
> 
> Maybe they are carefully hidden in the member's section, but I have
> never seen a cost analysis for a W3C (or any other competing standard
> organisation) decision made in the name of the mythic 80/20 rule...

the easier it is to make money from some tool, the faster the adoption 
of that tool

do you disagree?


> 
> Eric

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The myth of 80/20
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • RE: The myth of 80/20
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • RE: The myth of 80/20
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: The myth of 80/20
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
  • Re: The myth of 80/20
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: CSS Scoping in XML Namespaces
• Next by Date: Extreme Specwriting - was Re: The myth of 80/20
• Previous by thread: Re: The myth of 80/20
• Next by thread: Re: The myth of 80/20
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread