- From: DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:33:53 -0500
- To: "'Chiusano Joseph'" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>, Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
- Cc: egov@lists.oasis-open.org, wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org, cam@lists.oasis-open.org, xml-dev@lists.xml.org, public-ws-chor@w3.org
I'll second what Joe said, and elaborate on it: the consortium responsible is one thing and which vendors and groups are pushing it are something else. If the committee that created the spec has a bunch of companies I never heard of, or if big companies I have heard of have each packed the membership with multiple members, that's a big difference. Related issue: did the committee come up with the spec from scratch or did they tweak something submitted by someone else, and if so, by who. Competing vs. complementary specs: someone wondering whether to pay attention to a particular spec can easily be confused by its relationships to related specs. Sometimes specs that seem to address the same issue are actually addressing a different layer of the issue, sometimes they're directly competing. DRM and B2B standards are both good examples. Where are samples: I'm continually amazed at the amount of XML-based specs for which examples of valid XML are difficult or impossible to find. If you have a schema for the data specified by the spec, make it easy to find data that conforms to the schema and demonstrates *every* element and attribute in the schema. This helps to justify the presence of each element and attribute, which is part of a spec's job. Bob DuCharme www.snee.com/bob <bob@ snee.com> "The elements be kind to thee, and make thy spirits all of comfort!" Anthony and Cleopatra, III ii
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 11:34:14 UTC