- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:23:29 -0500
- To: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
If you have to keep asking this question (can we sell it) rather than considering the technical merits (does it do the job as well as it can be done), you are on the wrong list doing the wrong job. Can HyTime be sold? No. Can Hytime be revived piecemeal? Done deal as long as the web architects get to keep their genius grants. The web architects, (from the TAG on down) behave like gazelles running from a grass fire in one field to a crouching tiger in another: scared, run silly, and seldom having the luxury of grazing where they stand. Somewhere in the future, a hunter will take the day. Hytime was too early for the industry and too advanced for the web. It stayed in committee too long and couldn't be implemented by a kid with a MAC. Neither can 80% of what we now. If you haven't noticed, the web spec time in committee is starting to behave like a Kate Bush record in the studio: announcements of cheery progress but nothing finalized and on the shelves. The web architects have become what they so publicly loathed. len -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org] No doubt. I wonder why Hytime never took off. Was it too complicated? Hard to implement? Should we reconsider decisions made in 1992-1996 in light of stuff available today? Yet even if we reconsider, can Hytime gain the mindset of web folks c. 2002?
Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 10:24:46 UTC