Actually I frequently feel that the best programs are either written by a
large number of people or a single one. What we see on the Web in general
is a process of evolution in the Darwinian sense. Many solutions are not
planned, they evolve [1]. The uses to which HTML has been put represent the
results of experiments, a few of which have worked, and a great many of
which fail. A successful idea (or 'meme' to use Richard Dawkins' term) can
breed very quickly on the WWW.
XML-DEV is a breeding ground for XML memes. Many ideas are seeded and a
very few survive. We cannot expect those to be the 'best' in some absolute
sense, but they will be 'good'. They will coexist with a competing fluid
ecosystem of other memes.
The membership of XML-DEV grows steadily - Henry tells me it's about 1200
(and I suspect that the readership is higher since it's probably syndicated
in some organisations). I therefore don't think we are 'depleting the
energy resources' by working on this problem. It's interesting that many of
the people involved are quite distinct from those involved in SAX. I think
this represents an influx of talent that may have come from the non-SGML
community and in this sense it may bring fresh insights.
I am interested and flattered that you see XML-DEV having a positive role
for XSL. Perhaps - when it is released - it would be clear what the areas
are in which implementation will be seen as valuable. Implementing XSL is a
very large project and will require modularisation. If that modularity is
clear in the spec, that will be a great help. In that case I am sure there
are many readers who will find modules that they:
- need
- would like to contribute to
- have the appropriate skills (and work with interoperable technology -
e.g. language)
and they
- are happy to do this in public
- are happy to work in the XML-DEV manner (i.e. no formal guarantee that
their work will ultimately count for anything)
For my own purposes I would love to see an effort on the non-typographical
aspects of XSL. We need to have mechanisms for implementing behaviour. This
is probably complementary to the (?main) effort in rendering XML for human
readers.
P.
[1] The infrastructure of the Web (e.g. the protocols) is , of course, very
carefully regulated and cannot vary. It corresponds to the basic machinery
of any organism - essentially all use the same genetic code. But above that
there is great flexibility.
Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, domestic
net connection
VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary
http://www.venus.co.uk/vhg