Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,XML-Dev Mailing list <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:57:25 -0600
It probably depends on who you ask and when. As pointed
out in your mail and others, the question might better
be expressed as you did: does anyone oppose it? I had
some private email with one of the ISO functionaries
who would logically be involved in such a thing and
his comment was one of opposition to ISO rubberstamping
W3C specifications. He expressed that if ISO were to
be an active partner in the development of a specification, then
there would be a benefit to such a partnership, but that
to merely put ISO numbers on W3C specs is a waste of time.
In the development of VRML2.0 and now X3D, ISO has been
an active contributing partner to the development of
the standard. The input of ISO has been timely, the
technical insights valuable, and the process actually
made more clear and better managed. Perhaps this is
one case and ISO HTML is another. Still we know that
it can work where all parties work toward a common goal.
We can't say it is "too slow for Internet time" any longer
because we have empirical demonstrations this is not
the case. We can't say the ISO process is unwieldy because
it is process which ISO guarantees and which has proven
to be the best means of consolidating competing interests.
While the need of ISO endorsement for some contracting
processes is real, the reality of ISO partnership would
be practical only if ISO is a full contributing technical and
managerial partner. My guess is that if some object, this
could be the core of that objection.
Functionally as Rick Jeliffe points out, the use of
"XML is SGML" and citing the right documents gets us
through most of the current contract issues as long
as the buyer accepts the XML restrictions on the
application of SGML.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
So far as I know, no one's attempted to submit XML 1.0 or any version
thereof to ISO, but there has been discussion of such a possibility,
notably at the community meeting at XMLDevCon 2000 earlier this month.
I'm just curious, for the most part, but is there any reason that
submitting XML to ISO in some form would generate opposition? Tim Bray
asked if people _wanted_ to submit XML to ISO, which didn't get very much
support, but I wonder if there would be opposition to such a move.
There do seem to be a few sectors which might benefit from a more explicit
ISO stamp on XML than the current 'XML is really just SGML'.
There is some precedent with ISO HTML:
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books