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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Standards (yet again) was RE: Use of XML ?

I think we have to look beyond the definitions and ask ourselves
what we are prepared to demand of the organizations that seek
our consent to be credible authorities.   The self-selecting process
that started XML worked in its day, but it would have been far
better had Bosak gone to ISO and requested a partnership or worked
with ISO representatives to seek one with the W3C.  One
did emerge but by that time, ISO had little to say about what
was to be done with its intellectual property.  Let me repeat this
so it is clear what I mean:  SGML belongs to ISO just as surely
as XML does to the W3C.  Were one to repeat Jon's endeavor
today, any one of several organizations could under the international
laws that seek to arbitrate disputes among trading partners fire
down on that person or self-selected group like a crow with a
machine gun.  IOW, the original SGML On The Web SIG would be in jail.  
The days of intellectual appropriation of property under the banners of
"information wants to be free" are over.  They vanished in the
dot.bomb.  Greed overlooks the law.   Hunger cries for it.
The issue is not what we call the thing.  It is the rights to the
thing vested by the governing authorities insofar as they are
empowered to govern.   We are not free to challenge that. 
We are capable of seeking the best balance of powers that
enables us to work for technical innovation and systems
interoperation.   For that reason, what I am looking for
here personally is the means to achieve that balance
by separation of rights, powers, and principals under law.
Otherwise, you get the same result as the W3C has achieved:
you handed it ALL over to the largest vendors and they govern.
Your choice is who picks your choices.  Always.
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:49 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: Standards (yet again) was RE: Use of XML ?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dylan Walsh [
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:28 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: Standards (yet again) was RE: Use of XML ?

> I have taken a look at the definition of the noun "standard"
> in several online dictionaries, and the idea of legal status /
> government approval is not the only definition, and it is
> actually *hard to find* such
> meaning listed

I think I should have qualified it as "recognized international standard" or something like that.  The bit about the 4 canonical standards organizations is my recollection of information in one of the previous incarnations of this thread on xml-dev.  Somebody (Len Bullard?) can probably remind us of the legalities, or let me know if I'm full of it.