why distinctions within XHTML?

[Erik James Freed]

Good points all. Everybody is clearly bright and well meaning (really!). So
like
where is the middle ground? Are there some targeted changes that can be
effected
without compromising anything essential for either side? For instance how
about
a new category of membership that is cheap enough for individuals or small
companies
to afford, but expensive enough to keep out spurious elements, and that
requires
some amount of 'expert' standing? This would make me pretty happy. Others?

just a thought.. and since I do not want to burden this group anymore, I
will not
post again on this subject.

cheers,


erik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xml-dev at ic.ac.uk [mailto:owner-xml-dev at ic.ac.uk]On Behalf Of
> Ann Navarro
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 10:15 AM
> To: Erik James Freed; David Brownell
> Cc: XML-Dev Mailing list
> Subject: RE: why distinctions within XHTML?
>
>
> At 09:40 AM 8/31/99 -0700, Erik James Freed wrote:
> >As I read and listen to more and more of these w3c versus the masses
> >battles, I have to confess that the
> >missing element is the argument for *not* providing greater
> >exposure/accountability. Is it: Exposure of
> >proprietary information? Cost? Time? Quality? Personal attacks? Perhaps
> >these concerns/realities could be
> >overcome?
>
> This is, of course, only my personal opinion. I'm not speaking
> for the W3C,
> or in an official capacity for HWG.
>
> Primary issues: manageability, timeliness, cost, and the ability
> to commit.
>
> I personally have never been involved in an IETF activity. My
> understanding, from trusted colleagues that have, is that it is a
> painfully
> slow process, and often highly chaotic. (Speeds, of course, being
> relative,
> if you were to go on and compare it to ISO, etc).
>
> Manageability: even within the W3C, all members don't participate in each
> WG. 10-25 individual representatives do. Members not on the group can see
> early work in progress, or interim work that hasn't yet been updated to
> public drafts, and comment on those, but it's not significantly different
> than the public view, IMO.
>
> Drafts do indeed change substantially over their lifetime. That's why
> they're called drafts. XLink is a recent example of substantial change
> based both on internal decisions and general input.
>
> Working Groups face a catch-22: publish early, and despite disclaimers in
> the document, people adopt early and you find broken implementations when
> you do make changes. Publish late, and you're pressured to deliver. In
> between all that, WGs want to be as complete as they can, so people know
> where they're headed (and they don't induce mass panic).
>
> Cost: running WGs cost money. Teleconferences are held, face to face
> meetings are hosted and planned (yes, local hosts pay portions of those
> costs), staff salaries are paid, etc. Considerable work is done in these
> off-email fora where costs and logistical issues play a big part. I can't
> imagine an unlimited number of people in a teleconference or at a face to
> face meeting (or even in email work).
>
> Commitment: Joining a WG requires a 9-24 month commitment of
> (generally) at
> least 20% of your time. A full man-day a week. When you're a
> representative
> of a member company, it is part of your *job* to do this. Your
> company also
> commits to spending the resources required to fund your participation in
> teleconferences (the call to the bridge cost), your travel to and housing
> at face to face meetings, and any costs associated with giving the group a
> day a week of your time. That's not cheap. Invited experts can and do
> participate, making the same commitment. So that means time off from work
> (and funding) to go to face to face meetings, and at least an hour a week,
> normally during US working hours, for teleconferences, plus the remainder
> of that one man-day a week. So an invited expert either needs to have the
> full buy-in and funding from their employer, or they need to have
> sufficient personal funds to pay the expenses (plus be able to get time
> off). You can't participate half-way in a WG, say by just doing email and
> teleconferences. WGs meet face to face because considerable work gets done
> that way.
>
> That said, Interest Groups are available for many W3C activities where
> people *can* participate with a significantly lower level of commitment
> (normally just email). I'd urge interested parties to do so when
> possible.
>
> If you want to be recognized as a traditional invited expert, WG
> chairs and
> participants need to know about you and your desire to do so. I can't say
> pestering a chair or Dan Connolly will get you invited, but they need to
> know you exist and are willing. You do, however, need to meet
> that 'expert'
> status.
>
> Otherwise, there are some organizations that can provide for
> participation.
> HWG, when and where apprpropriate, sends members to WGs. You still have to
> have the same level of buy-in from your day-job as an invited
> expert -- you
> must be able to participate in calls, go to face to face meetings, etc. We
> pay costs, but it's not a free ride. And there's still the proof of expert
> status, and our required confidence in your representing us.
>
> So while the system may have some flaws, I think the W3C as a whole does a
> pretty good job.
>
> Ann
>
>
> ---
>
> Author of Effective Web Design: Master the Essentials
> Coming in September --- Mastering XML
>
> Founder, WebGeek Communications            http://www.webgeek.com
> Vice President-Finance, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org
> Director, HWG Online Education
http://www.hwg.org/services/classes





xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN
981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following
message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)