- From: Peter Murray-Rust <Peter@ursus.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 17:39:22 GMT
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
[crossposted to xml-dev in error] Forwarded message follows: > X-Mailer: PCElm 1.10 > Lines: 60 > Sender: owner-xml-dev@ic.ac.uk > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: Peter@ursus.demon.co.uk (Peter Murray-Rust) > Status: R > > Tim, > I'd like you and the ERB to know how much I appreciate the work > the ERB is doing, and also that I think it's a very effective process. > Personally I'm happy to work with whatever comes out - I trust the ERB to > come out with the most workable solution that the associated brainpower > and experience can muster. [I think it's a credit that on xml-dev (which > is discussing how to implement PhaseI) no-one so far has suggested that > the spec got things wrong, or is ambiguously worded, or otherwise > unimplementable.] > > In message <3.0.32.19970301183622.00b3fb54@pop.intergate.bc.ca> Tim Bray writes: > > The ERB has now put two meetings work in on this set of issues and is > > nowhere near done. Not surprising, given the importance of the issues. > > One of the factors holding us back a bit has been the fact that the > > discussion in the WG on the 3.* issues has been lacking in both volume > > and depth. Reasons for this might be (a) that the WG is tired (the > > ERB is), (b) that the WG is busy on other things, and (c) that the WG > > has substantially less experience in these issues than in those that > > came up in the XML language discussion. > > I cannot answer for anyone else, but I am (c). [I think it's also > going to be a problem in PhaseIII.] I shall (I hope) have something to > say about addressing in PhaseII (I assume that's still to come). > > >From my own perspective as a web hacker, I can probably hack solutions to most > of the proposals so far, so what matters is whether: > (a) people outside the WG, outside SGML, will understand the result. > (b) any decision is more constraining than any other. > > At present I am implementing the simplest approaches (HREF-like and IMG-like) > in JUMBO and can probably manage your next lot (with a struggle, and not > very efficiently, but that's not the point). As long as the rules are > clear, whether we have link information in attributes, GIs, contents or the > whole lot is probably manageable. It's more a question of whether confusion > will result. > > [...] > > As I mentioned on xml-dev I was talking to an important organisation in our > community who were very keen on XML, but 'hoped [the ERB/EG] didn't make it > too complicated'. In a sense, therefore, there are already two levels of > indirection - people like me have to understand it and then carry the message > to a wider community. If _they_ in term have to educate staff, the system > needs to be fairly self-explanatory. Where possible, therefore, I will > cast a meta-vote in favour of the 'most obviously understandable solution > (without prior SGML/HyTime knowledge)'. > > To this end, any short example documents illustrating your conclusions so > far would be extremely valuable. Essentially: 'This is what we are > suggesting: can you (a) understand what it is meant to do? (b) think it > can be implemented? (c) do everything that you want to do? (even if some > solutions creak a bit).' We could then try to feed back on these (more > concrete) documents. > > P. -- Peter Murray-Rust, domestic net connection Virtual School of Molecular Sciences http://www.vsms.nottingham.ac.uk/
Received on Sunday, 2 March 1997 15:09:48 UTC