OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
  • To: Rob Lugt <roblugt@elcel.com>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
  • Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:59:53 -0600

Let me give you an example of why "de facto" 
may not be good enough.  Here are two statements 
from a real Request for Proposal:

"Solutions that use Internet technology will be 

Followed later in the same document by:

"The ... plan for (a named agency) provides for a deployment 
that allows for the improvement of departmental systems and 
for access to the Internet.  The planned direction for 
information system provides for an architectural plan as 
defined by the following elements:

o Open Systems (ISO/OSI) standards "

See the problem.  We can't even mention the use of 
XML in a response to this.  The W3C isn't anywhere 
in this considered a standards org.  No, we can't explain it 
to them either.  This is formal contracting, not 
and RFI (request of information).   They did this 
deliberately.  We can mention ISO HTML (not W3C 

Do we like it?  Heck no.  We provide XML for lots 
of good reasons, but not to this customer.  

De facto is fine for developing technology but 
too often, not for selling it.

Len Bullard

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Lugt [mailto:roblugt@elcel.com]

I believe that XML 1.0 needs to be treated as a de-facto standard. 


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS