But the XML Working Group is pretty full. And I'd hate to see it fill
up and get bogged down. I wouldn't want people to think all you have to
do it join and -- pick your working group.
Also I really don't feel like XML was held up. On the contrary...looks
like Namespaces got rushed...
and what about people like Henry Thompson and James Clark (insert the
people I should put here) -- they played an enormous part in XML's
development (and the did it for peanuts :-)
And what about many of the W3C employees -- they don't profit from
software sales - I'm not gonna name names -- but some of these people
-- they're working 80 hours a week -- and it's not the most glamourous
work they're doing. But there's a sense of commitment to this Web
interoperability thing -- a genuine responsibility to finish what was
started and make sure it gets done right -- and even if no one
appreciates ....now....
$500 memberships are just going to cloud the issues.
And as far as most of the press goes. Most of them don't read the specs
NOW....even AFTER they're done...so I wouldn't want to see a $500 W3C
site-access membership just get written in to CNETs budget every year or
anything like that! (shudder)
Let's get back to more intersting....and beautiful...and magical
things....
like....
architectural forms...:-)
lisa
len bullard wrote:
>
> Tim Bray wrote:
> >
> > 1. The supposition that the XML process was in any material way less
> > open than the SGML process is simply wrong.
>
> I disagree. Compare the selection rules for membership in working
> groups. Who chooses the members of the working group for XML?
>
> > XML was aggressive about
> > seeking out invited experts to serve on the SIG mailing list, which
> > had very substantial influence on the shape of the spec.
>
> Yes.
>
> > In particular,
> > compare, in the XML process versus any other, the number of people and
> > organizations who were actively on top of the spec, really understood the
> > issues, and provided serious input. On that basis, XML's input head count
> > is exceeded only by a few of the bigger IETF efforts.
>
> This is true. The SIG is well staffed. The best SGML experts
> in the business are there.
>
> Point of history: When SGML was originally created, there was
> little use of the Internet for list activity of the kind that
> is now possible. That meant travel and financial support for
> standards efforts that only companies could afford. So, from
> that perspective, I concede. As one who encourages lists, I
> do so because I have seen the inherent limitations of airlines
> and hotels as the medium of communication for this work.
>
> > 2. The supposition that the HTML standardization process can be said,
> > in any meaningful sense, to have worked, is simply wrong. Anybody who
> > says this obviously has not tried to implement code that processes
> > what the marketplace perceives to be HTML.
>
> Point of difference: the HTML process produced a technology, not a
> standard. But to be more truthful, the Mosaic group implemented a
> technology being argued about by a large list. Considering the
> average age on that list and the lack of practice, I'm sure it
> was raucous.
>
> BTW: I was part of the team of Lockheed Martin that did
> implement an SGML and an HTML browser. I am aware of the
> design's limitations.
>
> So, yes, it wasn't perfect technology. Considering the
> results (The Web), that didn't matter. When the issue of
> choosing a text design for VRML was discussed, some thought
> that ONLY HTML should be the basis for that. Some still do.
>
> > This is defined not by any spec,
> > but by a basis of functionality that was in Netscape 2, and an unholy mess
> > of accretions, with only two companies really allowed to play.
>
> Not true. Several companies played. The W3C source was implemented
> several times. However, Netscape moved fastest and had the freshest,
> and for that design, most experienced team. So, they extended
> HTML quickly and cleverly. Extending an SGML application by
> adding to the DTD is the way its done. To the lasting chagrin
> of the originators of HTML, they insisted on making a standard
> of it rather than defining it as a tool, which is what it really is.
>
> > I think a
> > standard should be something that should serve as the basis for
> > implementation. XML is. HTML isn't.
>
> HTML is a DTD. Implementing a DTD IS what you do with it: SGML
> application.
>
> XML is syntax unification. I absolutely agree that this should be a
> standard. But it isn't. It's the property of a consortium, to
> paraphrase, "big companies that won't play unless they get their way"
> and that includes insuring a one year lead time on development.
> That is anti-competitive as it gets. Say what you want about
> the SGML process, Charles Goldfarb is a stickler for insuring
> that this does not happen: ISO rules backed by a man of
> incomparable commitment to the letter and spirit of the law.
>
> Point conceded: W3C makes the rules for W3C processes. The
> chair and all official members must abide by those rules.
> It is the rules I question. Given ISO rules, the XML processes
> would be different.
>
> > 3. It *is* the case that the W3C process is, by default, less open
> > than some others, in particular IETF. The hypothesis is that in
> > web-space, where there are lots of $N*10^7 bets on the table and
> > attack-trained marketing groups behind every bush, there are going to
> > have to be some closed doors to get anything useful done.
>
> That is demeaning FUD. I doubt there are professionals on this list
> that
> cannot be handled by the other professionals. Offlist is another issue.
>
> > 4.... Such memberships wouldn't
> > be free, a cost of perhaps $500 or so would bring it well within the bounds
> > of a book-publishing budget while discouraging frivolity.
>
> Umm. Why discourage it? It seems odd to me that the right to
> information which determines the direction of technology and
> technical markets should be sold as if it were a poker ante.
>
> Don't sell cheaper indulgences. The W3C should change its rules.
>
> > And once again, I regret that the XML process has failed to meet
> > Len Bullard's exquisitely high standards.
>
> Well, by any standards, your reply, Tim, is very civil.
> I respect that and thank you for it.
>
> len
>
> xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
> Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
> To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
> (un)subscribe xml-dev
> To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
> subscribe xml-dev-digest
> List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)