 |
 |
Quoting Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>: > > It's a shame. I can see the reasons why the committee took it the way > they did, but the whole exercise has ended up smelling of architecture > astronautics. See this column if you're not familiar with the term, > it's a good read: > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html > Speaking as someone who was on the committee, I can tell you that there was not a consensus on "going astronautic." Although some of us fought a good (well, at least hard) fight, the astronauts won. And if you think the text of the final standard is dense, you should have seen version 0.1! Eric Hellman wrote a revised version that was 1) in English 2) made sense, but that, too, was rejected. If you want to see my reaction to being presented with the "Bison Fute'" model [1] on the first day of the OpenURL committee meeting, download this [2] PPT and play it as a slide show (it is self-animated). (It helps you get the joke if you know that "Bison Fute'" means "wily buffalo".) kc [1] http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july01/vandesompel/07vandesompel.html [2] http://kcoyle.net/presentations/cpm3.ppt -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet