- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:43:09 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
I must say that I'm sympathetic to Len in his comments on process, in contradistinction to the last time this kind of debate came up. While I have not put forth a "final solution" proposal, I've made several concrete proposals (including required architectural forms, suggested XML BOS algorithms, and terminology). Aside from the continuing arguments over design principles, I've enver gotten any reaction or feedback on any of these proposals. I've been waiting for the ERB to post a list of "design decision queries", as they did with XML, once they felt that the discussion had brought the issues out, and decisions were to be made. I find that it's very hard to try to make architectural or design suggestions in a final proposal, because so many of the tradeoffs and discussions have already happened by the time such a proposal is ready for even a preliminary presentation. This is one reason that I've not dealt with Eliot's proposal in depth or made an all-in-one counter proposal. I think that it is a bit premature to have such proposals. I also am not paid to do this (or paid at allfor that matter!), and I can't take a day and a half just to write something that _should_ be discarded. If the ERB propagates it working decisions in the form of a complete preliminary proposal before we have a directed design-decision by design-decision discussion, I predict that the final result will be strongly determined by the initial proposal. This may be good or bad, but it is likely to happen. Like a lot of other people here, I've got other things that are supposed to take a higher priority than XML, and I let the email traffic eat more time than I have, but crunching through a long draft line-by-line makes it much harder to fit into the schedule, than having an issue-by-issue discussion where you need not even talk about issues not of interest. Believe it or not, there are issues that I don't hold forth on! So I would ask that we get either a list of queries, or at least regular updates on decisions taken, so that we can try to have them reversed, if possible, even though that is a much harder process for everyone given that the ERB suffers the weariness of revisiting the "final" decision on issues multiple times. I think there is also strong inertia once a decision is taken, regardless of the quality of that decision -- It's more work to change your mind that to make it up in the first place. -- David I am not a number. I am an undefined character. _________________________________________ David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams --------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 1997 12:35:59 UTC