Martin,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Martin Kobetic <<a href="mailto:mkobetic@cincom.com">mkobetic@cincom.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Yup, I like this approach. I'd add that we should be careful and not get carried away piling things up too high. There are many good ideas out there that are no doubt handy in many circumstances, but not all of them should go into the standard. It's important that in the end the standard as a whole is powerful, but coherent and that it sticks to the principle of a minimal number of simple but powerful building elements. So let's consider as many suggestions as we can, but let's be very selective in what we actually put in, considering each one in the context of the whole set.<br>
<br>
If we don't manage to keep the standard "lean and mean", few will be willing to plow through hundreds of pages of it, let alone bother complying with it. Especially if we intend to stick to the existing compliance criteria, where compliant implementation MUST implement everything defined in the standard.</blockquote>
<div><br><br>I agree. Hopefully there are things we can pull from our accumulated best practice experience since 1998 (the year of the ANSI standard) that deserve special attention.<br> </div>Andres.</div>