[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Standards (yet again) was RE: Use of XML ?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com, email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 14:07:15 -0500
think we have to look beyond the definitions and ask ourselves
we are prepared to demand of the organizations that seek
consent to be credible authorities. The self-selecting process
started XML worked in its day, but it would have been far
had Bosak gone to ISO and requested a partnership or worked
ISO representatives to seek one with the W3C. One
emerge but by that time, ISO had little to say about what
be done with its intellectual property. Let me repeat this
is clear what I mean: SGML belongs to ISO just as surely
does to the W3C. Were one to repeat Jon's endeavor
any one of several organizations could under the international
that seek to arbitrate disputes among trading partners fire
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
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
issue is not what we call the thing. It is the rights to the
vested by the governing authorities insofar as they are
empowered to govern. We are not free to challenge that.
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
personally is the means to achieve that balance
separation of rights, powers, and principals under law.
Otherwise, you get the same result as the W3C has achieved:
handed it ALL over to the largest vendors and they govern.
choice is who picks your choices. Always.
sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
> From: Dylan Walsh [mailto:Dylan.Walsh@Kadius.Com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:28
> To: firstname.lastname@example.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
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