Specifications can be great and they can be ugly. Great ones help you understand the specified useful structures, are relatively easy to implement, and easy to work with. Ugly ones may be complex, difficult and frustrating. Here are a few terms intended humorously to illustrate these categories :-)
OK, these are too tongue-in-cheek, and this is not really a good category scheme, because for a good category scheme, you would need to have things much clearer — the definitions should give anyone a good guide about how to categorise anything - in this case a specification - as belonging to just one of the categories. Here, the categories are too much matters of personal opinion and preference.
To refer to the scheme as a whole, use the URI
https://www.simongrant.org/web/specscheme#
and to refer to e.g. the nice category use
https://www.simongrant.org/web/specscheme#nice
Obviously the URI
https://www.simongrant.org/web/specscheme
refers to this actual web page.
This is meant to conform with the ideas in
the W3C's "cooluris" paper.
| Term: | complex |
|---|---|
| Meaning: | The specification is large, complex and with lots of arbitrary hierarchy. It is difficult to learn, hard to implement. It may suit applications where implementers are from large businesses. It does not favour small developers. |
| Example: | HR-XML |
| Term: | geek |
|---|---|
| Meaning: | The specification is not too hard, just a bit weird. Business people run a mile. Seems designed for people who play strange games with their computers (and other people). |
| Example: | FOAF |
| Term: | nice |
|---|---|
| Meaning: | The specification is nice and clear. People can understand and use it easily, and extend it simply. |
| Example: | Atom |
| Web resources | index page | © 2004 |
Here I'm going to add lots and lots of dots so that when you jump to a particular term, it comes up at the top of the page.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.