Why do we write standards?
paul at prescod.net
Wed Nov 10 21:15:32 GMT 1999
David Megginson wrote:
> To summarize more briefly, I suggested that there are two paths to
> standardization (which we all agree is a good thing):
> 1. The big-bang approach, where we try to do everything at once and
> either fail or succeed spectacularly.
> 2. The incremental approach, where we do a little at a time without
> getting too far ahead of implementors.
I think we all agree that in standards, as in code, you must use both.
Incremental when you don't understand the domain and/or don't have time
for the full monty and top-down when you are confident of your
understanding and your success.
My question is: do we give something a label, encourage people to use it
and then later invent it, or do we invent it and then encourage people
to experiment with it, and THEN give it a label? The former does not
strike me as "incremental". Rather, "insane."
Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself
"Chaos is the Engine" - Len Bullard
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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev