Eric,
Thanks for the further details. Clearly you are more in favour
of short cryptic one-liners! ; -)
I've learned from long experience that in committee work - you have
to be able to back things up with more in-depth analysis to gain
credibility and also so that peer review of exactly what is intended is
worked out. Often - English being the inprecise tool that it is -
two people can appear to be saying the same thing - but in fact they
are quite different in significant details.
I'm not sure there are any short cuts here - it is what it is.
You cannot substitute procedural devices for real world experience with
actual XML and systems across a BROAD community of interest. Most
especially - when no dialogue occurs and specifications are
too rapidly moved thru the process - this almost always results in
sub-standard technology outcomes - where the substance is too shallow -
and lacks breadth.
So I say - there is enough checks and balances - if companies are
deliberately stacking the process - and stiffling the technical
innovation within their own team - this fools noone - (except the paid
marketing PR machine!) - and actually hurts them technically - if their
aim is to foster broad adoption. A quick read through the
specification by those technically astute will quickly discern what is
really going on - and the lack of support for the broad use
model...
There's an old saying - give people enough rope to hang themselves
with!
DW