RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail

[Benjamin Franz <snowhare@nihongo.org>]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> That's why some people are and have always 
> been "sensitive" when the term "standard" 
> is applied to W3C specifications.

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck..."

I am at a loss. In what respect *AREN'T* the W3C specs _standards_?

Is this an example of 'standards snobbery' where unless it is by the
ISO/ANSI/some-other-organization-with-'S'-in-its-acronym it can't be a
"real" standard? (Huge clue - standards existed before standards
organizations did).

Or is it 'political sensitivity' to companies (not naming any names) that
are adverse to participating in a process that generates standards which
they don't want to 100% conform to, but which they want to claim they
support? So they can avoid being beat up for non-compliance with the
standard? 

Either way - it's complete nonsense. By any generally accepted use of the
word 'standard', the W3C specs *ARE* standards. Just because you don't
*call* a duck, 'a duck', doesn't mean it isn't a duck.

-- 
Benjamin Franz

... with proper design, the features come cheaply. This 
approach is arduous, but continues to succeed.

                                     ---Dennis Ritchie