xml-dev - Re: standards body parallel

[Lisa Rein <lisarein@finetuning.com>]

Hey Simon!

Reality Check:

Isn't the sheer fact that this incident even took place 
indisputable proof that of the success of the W3C and IETF role
models?  how else would the attendees know to get mad and question the
process?

(???!!!)


Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> 
> At 02:34 PM 10/13/00 -0400, Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com wrote:
> >
> > The quotes in the article suggest that Intel should not propose an
> > organization where the big players have all the power, and point Intel to
> the
> > IETF and the W3C as good examples to follow.
> 
> You're welcome to read the article as painting the W3C as an angel.  I
> certainly didn't get that feeling from it, but recognize that we come from
> rather different perspectives.

1) I don't see how you could ascertain anything positive OR negative
about the W3C from that article.  
the w3c isn't pained as an angel in that article, it's not 
"painted" at all!

"W3C" was only used once in one sentence.


2)Are you saying that you have a better role model for a standards body
than the IETF and the W3C?    

Pray Tell...what that might that be?




> 
> Again, I'm happiest to see that developers are questioning the wisdom of
> centralized models in which the big players play key roles.  

I know that you're not comparing that shenanigan that Intel, as a
corporation, tried to pull over P2P    to the W3C or any of its
processes 


Given that very
> few people who use W3C specs notice the W3C, much less examine its structures
> closely, I'll take it as a sign that some communities are very much awake.
> 
> >

AGAIN - don't start confusing the issues here.  The
The story I read had developers "waking up" to Intel's fake standards
process, not criticizing the W3C's real one.  

Oh that's what your header was getting at -- the reference made no sense
to me "standards body parallel".  

maybe you should read the story again in order to have a better
understanding of who was coming under attack, and by whom, and why.

Just cause you would have liked it to been a W3C roast, in the real
world, the W3C was cited as the good guy.  (or since it was barely
talked about at all, it was cited more like just "a guy")


Only my opinion, but I  do truly believe that it is absolutely because
the W3C has done such a good job at providing a role model for what a
"real" standard is that the rash of wanna-be efforts (who shall remain
nameless) and their propaganda machines haven't been able to make that
much ground.

It was too late, the word was out (the word is still out)
on what a real standard is.  
and i continually amazed  how much you are able to criticize the wc3's
process, without really researching or participating or even observing
the process

 while admitting that you don't, in fact, know anything about it
personally (nevertheless, you have succeeded in spreading some nasty
rumours)

Simon:  I believe that secretly, you truly long to be involved in
everything that is W3C.  You wanna be on a working group, maybe even go
to a meeting a hob nob with those even vendor types -
--you know the ones.

--you know the ones.in the smoke filled rooms that have so much
influence on the specs so you can see your name on a spec and all that
kind of thing. 

You've just got a case of W3C envy in the worst sort of way, ya know?
:-)

> > In Intel's model, if you pay more money to participate, you get more power.
> > In the W3C model, big companies pay a lot, small companies pay much less,
> and
> > everyone gets the same vote.
> 
> Not being an insider at the W3C, I have to speculate, but there are persistent

Not being a PARTICIPANT of the W3C, which is your option.

and come on simon...you ALWAYS speculate :-)
it ibviously doesn't bother you....

and this thread is living proof, that it doesn't bother you to do it
repeadedly -- 


> rumors that companies with larger market share do in fact receive considerably
> more deference than smaller firms whose role in making standards succeed or
> fail is considered less substantial.
> 

Now THAT'S a bald-faced lie!    

(that makes you a liar)


too bad you've chosen to repeat heresay  

instead of participating in the process to 
confirm or delete what I believe are 
your paranoid delusions one way or another 


This is the this you don't understand about the W3C's process -- how
having competitors designing specs with each that makes good standards
possible.  Everybody just really wants the best technology.  

Companies really can't effective "trap" implementors by exerting more
control over the stardards process.  The architechtures are to well
understood now and its in every technology company's best interest to
play it straight and implement all of the standards if possible.
> 
> I found it telling that a rep from Cisco, not an independent, was suggesting
> the W3C as a role model.
> 

I find it more telling that yet AGAIN, for at least the 40th time, 
you have managed to start a negative thread about the W3C
on the pretense of linking to an article that supposedly had something
negative to do with it.


and I find it even MORE pathetic, that for at least the 5th time, I have
been suckered into responding to it ;-)

lisa






> >
> > Clearly, there are fans of the IETF model, and fans of the W3C model. Both
> > groups have produced influential and useful standards.
> 
> Agreed.
> Simon St.Laurent
> XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
> XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
> http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books