[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Guy Murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Justin Couch <email@example.com>,firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 10:38:25 -0500
"I have no friends in business." - a successful
CEO turning a profit for a company that hasn't
turned one in a while
People seem to be wishing for lots of things.
Different organizations don't necessarily fix
anything. Different processes don't necessarily
fix anything. Well-focused requirements help.
We will never see a frictionless web, IMO,
mainly, because there are too many places
where surfaces meet moving parts. This
whole debate IS semantic hair splitting
because we do have many semantics. We know
that. Big umbrella organizations try to
cover all of that, but scope is still scope.
A well-focused organization only tries to
do a few things well. Works in business and it
works in standards and specs.
The question is can these organizations operate
in the open? We are at an interesting point
in the growth of the web organizations and
businesses. Can they compete and provide
standards AND products?
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Guy Murphy [mailto:email@example.com]
I've wandered from the point... what is my point?... well, simply I'm not
sure how helpful comparisons between the W3C and ISO are.
And remember ISO specs are exactly renouned for being terribly friendly, and
take quite a while to produce.... be careful what you wish for if it's a
more ISO-like W3C.