xml-dev - RE: OSS vs W3C? was: Next Round

["Matthew Sergeant (EML)" <Matthew.Sergeant@eml.ericsson.se>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Bill la Forge [SMTP:b.laforge@jxml.com]
> 
> If the validity of a standard is based on the process which defines it, I
> suspect that
> the work done on xml-dev has the greater validity.
> 
> Open Source Software and vendor controlled standards bodies, IMHO, are a
> poor marrage.
> The advantage of Java and XML is that they let you do significant work
> without the need
> for a large team effort. Agreement and support of a few large vendors is
> no longer the
> significant factor.
> 
> We need standards. But I suspect the process needs to be updated.
> 
	It's interesting I was thinking about the very same thing just the
other day. Currently our standards as defined by the W3C (and other
standards bodies) are defined by effectively locking a group of "members" in
a room and waiting until they emerge with something worthwhile. It's a
fairly impenetrable room from the outside, even though it's possible at
certain stages of the process to make suggestions from the outside - there's
no guarantee that those suggestions will even be considered. The "members"
tend to be large corporations who have a vested interest in the technology
(yes, I know Tim is the exception here).

	Is this neccessarily a bad thing? I don't know - we've never really
experienced anything different. And yet when I compare it to the software
world, and read "The Cathedral and The Bazaar", I can't help wondering if
developing standards in a Bazaar might be a better model. It would certainly
be interesting to try.

	Matt.

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)