- From: Rimantas Liubertas <rimantas@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:26:20 +0300
> <The point> > I do not doubt of Ian's good faith, nor of his huge effort in making > HTML5 the best possible thing it might be. However, I doubt of the > sanity of having an individual to have the final say about any topic, I don't doubt the sanity of it at all. > even above expert groups that have been researched and discussed the > topic for years. That's that happen when no one has a final say: years of discussions. Quite often?about the color of the bike shed. > Just because the fruit of so long work can't be properly sintetized in > plain-text e-mails doesn't mean that there is not enough value on it. > Going back to the example, there was a lot of people involved in RDF > and RDFa since 1997. That's already twelve years of continuous work > and research by several people. HTML5 replaces all this effort (RDF > and RDFa) with that of a single person over few months (Microdata). I doubt that discussions started in 1997 with HTML5 in mind. So I guess those interested can keep going for 12 more years if so inclined. > Honestly, I can't say for sure which method would be best for HTML; > but I'm still convinced that having a single gatekeeper with absolute > power over the next web standard is, at least, insane. I'd say that's the one the best ways to get something practical done. To quote Frederick P. Brooks Jr.: "Conceptual integrity in turn dictates that the design must proceed from one mind, or from a very small number of agreeing resonant minds" ? "The Mythical Man Month", Chapter 4 "Aristocracy, Democracy and System Design" Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 04:26:20 UTC