What a refreshing point of view. I completely agree,
but was afraid to say it, since all too many times I've been
beaten down by suggesting a leaner, simpler approach.
All too many times we approach a concept, only to find an
800 page "tome" in our mailboxes before things are really
fleshed out (such as reasonable scenarios describing key
application environments).
I think this is why many (if not most) people in the PWG
are actually in the dark about many things, since very
few people have the time to read such horrific detail
at the early stages of an effort.
I wish we could find a way to change that.
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm at underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger K Debry wrote:
>> I have started to review the latest notification paper from Tom et al.
> This looks to be a fine example of design by committee, i.e. put
> everything in but the kitchen sink, so as to please everybody. Sorry,
> but I think it's rubbish -- if it takes 50 pages to describe it is way too
> complicated. If I can wade through the gory details, I'll make more substantive
> comments later.
>> Roger K deBry
> Senior Technical Staff Member
> Architecture and Technology
> IBM Printing Systems
> email: rdebry at us.ibm.com> phone: 1-303-924-4080