RE: RE: [xml-dev] Painful USA Today article (was RE: [xml-dev] AN

Short? Modular? Hmmmm. Would the W3C actually take lessons from OASIS?
(RELAX NG comes to mind.)

Also, W3C's QA Framework (http://www.w3.org/QA/) doesn't sound like a bad
thing wrt specs.

Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 11:12 AM
> To: Simon St.Laurent
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: RE: [xml-dev] Painful USA Today article (was RE: [xml-dev]
> AN
>
>
> Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
>
> > I suspect that Working Groups will shudder at the thought of any of
> > their precious features being listed as expendable this way, but it's
> > about time for clarity if they aren't willing to throw more things out.
>
> Not so fast, or just you wait, 'Enry 'Iggins.  Expect to see some
> *very short*, *modular* specs actually emerging from a WG long thought
> to be moribund.  W3C confidentiality prevents me from saying more.
>
> --
> John Cowan <>     http://www.reutershealth.com
> I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>