xml-dev - RE: RELAX to ISO

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

We've always faced such rules.  DoD procurements 
have cited standards for years and has been involved 
in picking which authority governed them.  Not new. 
What happened is that the procurement officers, who 
have ultimate say, provided waivers to allow other 
specs and other authorities.  Remember, ISO SGML 
conformance was a mandate for CALS.  It didn't slow 
down the acquisition of other systems.

That said, the W3C is supposed to be inculcating 
technologies, not registering standards.  That 
mixed role is a mixed blessing.  The consortia 
can do as its members will, out of sight and 
out of reach if they like.  But when it comes 
to international law, the kind contracts are 
written to, the W3C is a bit unstable for 
long term transactions.  I don't say it doesn't 
work; just that it gets decided case by case 
and that is why the guy who signs the check 
decides the case.

The weird thing about superpower is just how 
hard it is to focus it.  See Beirut and Ronnie 
Raygun.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: KenNorth [mailto:KenNorth@email.msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 12:22 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: RELAX to ISO


We might be facing an interesting scenario. Some development work in the
future will be governed by rules that mandate conformance to recognized
standards (e.g., the US government's HIPAA rules for healthcare
transactions).

If RELAX advances through ISO, XML schemas and documents that conform to the
RELAX specification would conform to an approved standard. However,
conforming to the W3C Schema specification would not satisfy rules about
standards compliance.