Re: "industry needs"

On Jun 6, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Stan Devitt wrote:

> The point here was not to debate the details and perceptions of of  
> MathML

I wasn't really trying to debate it, I was merely trying to learn  
from that experience. I agree there are analogies between RIF and  
MathML, but I also am trying to nail down what "widespread adoption"  
really means, esp. as a *general* CSF. But it's hard to get very far  
from your elliptical remarks, hence the request for further points. I  
merely included the other pointers as evidence that I did try to find  
this out myself (however quickly).

> though I think it and the process that was followed does provide good
> counter examples to some of the ideas I have been hearing.
[snip]

Not if they aren't accessible. Or rather, it's harder for them to do  
so. Of course, this being the W3C, the discussions, at least, are  
open. But the adoption probably comes from other sources.

I tend to think that "widespread adoption" is a bit of a empty  
whatever it is (requirement?). (In fact, I had an email from someone  
off list where they said they understood "widespread adoption" to  
mean "widespread adoption in the 'mainstream' rules community" where  
the "'mainstream' rules community" was dominated by PR rules. So, "PR  
rules are essential to widespread adoption" becomes, well, a  
tautology.) I tend to think it's more important to know if *members*  
are going to adoption/support it. So Alex's report is much more  
interesting and informative (my skepticism wrt to the 900 IT  
engineers notwithstanding) than these other ones.

Forgive my skepticism, but when people appeal to certain facts, I  
prefer some back up for those facts, particularly about things that  
are in principle verifiable.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 15:51:59 UTC