SV: Motivation and Visibility

Thanks for raising the issue and spelling it out, Curt
 
I'll try to be as concise as possible in order to minimize risk of
misunderstanding.
 
I can only speak for myself when saying that I have carefully studied your
proposal, as well as every other proposal being put forward. This is clearly
visible from the fact that I, as well as Mary, have been convinced that
naiming elements after DOM constructs is by far the best way to go about it.
This is what the updated NIST DTD will all be about.
 
Also, I think we are closer to reaching common understanding of the load
mechanism we will use, as well as the suite construct as such. One thing
which still needs resolving is the variable declaration (should it be done
up front? do we do this in the transformation layer?) which I look forward
to discussing with everyone  on this list as well as on the telephone
conference.
 
I take it that most of the points in the email you point to have been
discussed. Do you feel that anything has been left out? If so, please
indicate that and I'll bring it on the agenda for further discussion and the
telcon ASAP.
 
Please accept my apologies for having hinted that significant work is taking
part elsewhere. The DOM TS is a product of the discussion on this mailing
list. However, some issues have been raised with the DOM WG and I have
reported back to this list as soon as was possible. Please bear in mind that
this framework is initiated by the DOM WG and NIST given the process
document I have pointed to on numerous occasions. 
 
I hope to have answered all your questions and invite you to keep an eye
open were similar issues to be raised again. Your perception on process
issues is at least as important as purely technical issues.
 
Hopefully we will be able to move ahead even faster now that this has (in my
view) been clarified.
 
Best,
 
/Dimitris

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Curt Arnold [mailto:carnold@houston.rr.com]
Skickat: den 24 maj 2001 19:11
Till: www-dom-ts@w3.org
Ämne: Motivation and Visibility


I'm really got to get to real work having been up way too late last night.
 
I guess part of the issue comes from the expectations that were raised by
text in the invitation that said that the framework and tests were going to
be publically developed. In my mind, that means there should be freedom to
discuss shortcomings and alternative formulations before a particular path
is locked in.
 
I mentioned some (but not all of the issues I had with the NIST DTD) of
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom-ts/2001May/0006.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom-ts/2001May/0006.html> .  The
responses seemed like we were talking past each other, It didn't seem like
others were getting my points and I wasn't getting theirs.  Building the
schema was an attempt to help crystalize my thoughts on the issues and to
try to more clearly communicate what I envisioned.
 
On visibility, I wasn't trying to throw stones at NIST or Dimitris, since
they have been about the only other people discussing things on the mailing
list.  However, some of Dimitris comments have hinted that there are others
doing significant work and making significant decisions outside of public
view.