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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: opposition to ISO XML?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
  • To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>,XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@xml.org>
  • 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.

Len Bullard

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

From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]

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:

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


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

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