W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2004

Re: complexity (was: Re: XHTML and RDF)

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:30:47 -0700
To: Orion Adrian <oadrian@hotmail.com>, <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BC9A4D6C.3A6D6%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On 4/7/04 10:57 PM, "Orion Adrian" <oadrian@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
>> * Orion Adrian wrote:
>>> I think a friend of mine hit this on the head. It doesn't really matter
>> who
>>> is coming up with these specs, the people coming up with the specs don't
>>> have to implement them or use them with the possible exception of the XML
>>> and HTML working groups.
>> 
>> Oh please, it's the W3C Membership who comes up with these specs

Not necessarily.  It's not too difficult to think of specs which have been
driven more by W3C staff than the membership.

>> and you
>> cannot seriously claim that W3C Members are not implementers or users of
>> these specs.

Actually, you can.  I would say most W3C Members do NOT implement most W3C
specs.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Ian Hickson could prove that no W3C
Member has properly implemented even one W3C spec.


> Admittedly I'm venting. I'm venting because I'm frustrated with how the
> specs have turned out. And I'm dissappointed with how the specs turned out
> for a lot of technologoies.

You are not the only one.

<particular names of specs snipped to protect the guilty>

> Some people are too harsh, myself included.

I disagree.  From what you have said so far, I would not characterize your
criticisms as too harsh.

> I was unfair,

I disagree.

> but I believe 
> there is merit behind my disappointment and I do believe a much better job
> could have been done on various technologies.

100% agreed.

>>> Now given the overall structure of the W3C, I don't see a lot that they
>>> can
>>> do about that. Perhaps what the W3C should concentrate on is culling back
>>> existing standards and simplifying them.
>> 
>> That would among other things require consensus about what consitutes
>> simplicity. Also note that something that is simple to implement might
>> be complicated to author or the other way round, and that simplicity
>> is only one of the many desired properties of a technology. You might be
>> interested in reading the materials at <http://www.w3.org/2003/Editors/>
> 
> Thanks for the link. My desire for simplicity is for authorship first and
> implementation second. Why? Because these documents are going to be authored
> a lot more often than implemented. However I do believe that in the cases of
> XML Namescapes, XML Schema, XLink, RDF and OWL they could both be made
> simpler to implement and simpler to author.

Agreed.

> I think Relax NG is an excellent
> example of a schema language that is both.

I haven't evaluated Relax NG yet so I cannot comment on that.

Tantek
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:30:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:00 GMT