Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 08:57:19 -0500
At 09:56 AM 2/9/00 +0000, Miles Sabin wrote:
>Jon Bosak wrote,
>> I strongly believe that further work on it should be conducted
>> in a properly constituted OASIS technical committee so that
>> the evolution of the specification from this point on is
>> guaranteed to take place under a democratic process that is
>> open to all interested parties, provides an IPR policy based
>> on an open-source model, and is visible to the world at large.
>I'd like to second this.
And I'd like to violently oppose this.
SAX development has been almost completely visible to the world at large.
Bringing it behind closed doors (even cheaper closed doors with a ticket of
a mere $250) and formalizing the process seems to promise very little but a
way to cut SAX off from the community that has helped create it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why close the doors even part way on a
project that's been built in the sun?
Sorry, but formal standard-building is not prima facie superior to open
discussion. I've argued this point for a lot of years, and I'm
disappointed to see it suggested that the most successful open-discussion
based XML spec be taken to a more formal and less open process.
If David Megginson wants to put SAX in the hands of OASIS, he is of course
welcome to, as the keeper of the spec, but the rest of us groundling can
still have fun with what's public domain, I guess.
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth