Michael Champion wrote:

>  The W3C is not some
>  monolithic organization doing things for obscure and sinister purposes,

Aw, shucks.  *finger-snap*

>  I don't see how the
>  W3C benefits from over-hyping a promised spec that proves underwhelmingly
>  capable or overwelmingly complex in practice.

"Publicity is good.  Good publicity is even better."
 
>  In short, I see the "questionable" behavior that was noted (some of it which
>  I have no trouble with, such as the deprecation of SGML ... and other that I
>  deplore, such as the growing complexity of the XML-related specs) as the
>  result of ordinary mortals trying to do so much in so little time, not
>  self-serving calculation by the W3C or its members.

I agree with this.

>  Something like XML Schema is so complex
>  because it is the product of 35 (or whatever) people with at least that many
>  separate agendas.

And Infoset is lucidly simple because I myself designed and wrote it with
very little interference (or even input) from anybody.  :-) :-)

>  W3C specs fully demonstrate
>  the truth of the adage "a camel is a horse invented by a committee".  If you
>  want something swift, graceful and beautiful, don't require it to go without
>  food or water for a week while surviving extremes of heat and cold.

But I don't understand; camels *are* swift, graceful, and beautiful!

>  Ruthless elimination of complicating
>  constraints will be much more effective than attempts to eliminate
>  self-serving behavior, even if such a thing were possible.

Unfortunately, discarding Real World constraints produces the beautiful
product that nobody uses.  "Worse is better."

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@[...].com> 
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)