- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:52:15 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 2012-03-22 14:46, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 13:45, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> On 2012-03-22 14:40, Marcos Caceres wrote: >>> ... >>>> Modularization for the sake of it is make work; modularization built >>>> around fast tracking features that are already deployed and >>>> interoperable seems to be a good investment (even if costly). >>> >>> >>> >>> We would need to ask Hixie how long it took him to write the script that breaks the WHATWG spec up into the little specs (and cost of maintenance of that code). That would give us a real cost estimate. >>> ... >> >> >> >> That gives you a cost estimate for the case where you start and maintain >> a single spec, and then split it up later. >> >> That cost is different from starting with several specs in the first place. > This is true. But at least it's one data point to work from. OK; here's another data point. HTTPbis started as RFC 2616, split into seven pieces. After the split was done, the modularization essentially creates no overload at all, but makes maintenance much easier; in particular with multiple authors working on different parts at the same time. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 13:52:58 UTC