Re: complexity (was: Re: XHTML and RDF)

[Added www-qa]

I think the discussion should be there, because it's all about process, 
quality, etc.

Le 08 avr. 2004, à 11:09, Orion Adrian a écrit :
> Yes. The specs themselves are too complex without regards to their 
> implementations. If I as an individual can come up with specs that do 
> as much or more than the existing specs, write the engine for them 
> _and_ still have the whole thing easier to author, than what the hell 
> is wrong with the W3C?

Too Complex, or not precise enough?

To answer to "what the hell is wrong with the W3C?". Nothing. Not in 
the terms you mean, it's just reality check. We are not living in a 
perfect world. We are in a situation where from a collective group, you 
want to achieve something stable with people with different interests, 
needs, cultures, etc. It's *just group life*.



What makes a good specification is a work, we are trying to nail down 
for a while in the QA Activity. It's not something easy to answer, and 
I wish we had an answer.

What is a specification?
How do you create a collective work?
How do you keep this work realistic in a consensus building?
How do you preserve minimum interoperability?
How do you try to reach maximum interoperability?

Many of the questions are trying to be addressed on the www-qa mailing 
list for a long time, with or without success depending on the topics. 
The wiki is also a repository to factorize ideas from people, feel free 
to edit it.


http://esw.w3.org/topic/MeaningVsBehavior
http://esw.w3.org/topic/FormalLanguageVsProse
http://esw.w3.org/topic/ImplementationReport
http://esw.w3.org/topic/ExtensibilityGoodOrBad
http://esw.w3.org/topic/ErrorHandling
http://esw.w3.org/topic/TestableOrNot



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***