xml-dev - Re: standards body parallel

[Lisa Rein <lisarein@finetuning.com>]

this is just a test to see if my posting works.

sorry.

(I don't think anyone's going to even see this anyway :-)

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> 
> At 03:38 PM 10/13/00 -0400, Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com wrote:
> >
> > Simon St. Laurent wrote:
> > >  I'm happiest to see that developers are questioning
> > >  the wisdom of centralized models in which the big
> > >  players play key roles.
> >
> > Small players can be extremely influential, due to the "meritocracy of
> geeks"
> > factor, which also holds sway in the W3C. Each Working Group has a lot of
> > work to be done. If you do the work, you get listened to. I used to work for
> > a very small company, Texcel, but I found that the concerns that I raised
> > were listened to in the W3C.
> >
> > James Clark ... Henry Thompson... Tim Bray... SoftQuad... Lauren Wood...
> >
> > You simply don't need to work for a large company to be influential in the
> > W3C.
> 
> So why the vendor consortium approach?  Why the secrecy?  'Bozo fees' just
> don't seem like much of an answer.
> 
> I'm delighted that these people (yourself included) have been able to wield
> substantial influence, but does that explain the W3C's structure?
> 
> >
> > > That may just be realpolitik, of course.
> >
> > In fact, realpolitik is precisely what it is.
> >
> > If you want to create a standard for HTML or the DOM, you want Microsoft and
> > Netscape to support it. If either of those parties say a decision causes
> them
> > significant problems, that decision will generally be addressed. If it isn't
> > adopted, it isn't a standard. If the major companies don't buy into it, and
> > use something different, then there is no one standard. Each company may
> have
> > only one vote, but each company tends to believe that adoption by the
> > companies that are significant in a particular market is important.
> 
> I think this level of realpolitik is reasonable, but again, it doesn't explain
> the structure.
> 
> Vendor consortia are by their very nature a means around antitrust laws.  It
> seems that it might be wise, in these days of heavier antitrust
> enforcement, to
> make sure that these decisions are accessible without a subpoena.
> 
> >
> > On the other hand, if *any* member of a Working Group finds that a decision
> > causes them significant pain in real development efforts, that is taken very
> > seriously, and that member tends to get a solution to their problem.
> 
> My concern here lies primarily with who's in the Working Group, and whether or
> not the larger world outside can hear their pain.  I'm glad to hear that WGs
> are responsive - I just can't figure out why the smoke-filled back room is so
> critical to the process.
> Simon St.Laurent
> XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
> XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
> http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books