xml-dev - Re: sunshine and standards development

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

At 03:07 PM 10/15/00 +0800, Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
>Furthermore ISO standardization is a guarantee that a process has been
>adhered to and not a guarantee the result is useful.  And especially it
>is not a guarantee that the result is useful on the desktop.  However,
>most people don't know how many things they use are benefits of ISO
>standardization (characters sets, computer keyboard positions and
>layouts, the meter [except in US]).  OSI software has different
>characteristics from TCP/IP and has been very useful for the
>applications that need it.  ISO has been a very successful standards
>organization.

Does that same guarantee apply to fast-track proposals?  It seemed like
fast-track was a serious change to the approach they used, allowing the
process to take place outside of ISO halls. 

>I think the better question is "how can we make standardizing or
>Standardizing bodies which create 20-page-spec technologies?"    Vendors
>and implementors want to have features that fit in with their
>conceptions; when they get together they will compromise; the resulting
>specs will always tend to be larger rather than smaller.  XML edition 2
>has shrink because it can reference RFCs more, but in general specs will
>get bigger over time. 

While it might be a lot of fun to limit specs to 20-pages (and demand
readable English simultaneously), I think I'd rather reach that result by
competition than by fiat.  Let a lot of groups write specs, organize
themselves into coalitions, and then have a genuinely neutral and
accountable organization sort through the results based on quality of specs
and quality and interoperability of implementation.

Of course, I still haven't had my coffee this morning.


Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books