[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> This is what the big players want everyone to believe: that it is
> innevitable that they should be the leaders. However the open
> source and free movement has clearly shown that important
> technologies can grow and thrive based on their own merits,
> independent of whether they fit into the strategies of the big
> boys.
Yes but have a look at the market, the sold products are microsoft,
IBM or others. 90% of the internet browsers are MS. The best schema
processor is MS... These days very few small technology companies
are making money by developing technology. How can they even think
about giving it to a standard. Even to a RAND standard. Let be sure
that the time to market is not an argument, look at Netscape !
> The extent that MPEG adopts proprietary, licenseable technology is
> the extent that it fails as a standard.
First MPEG is not a proprietary technology. It is an open standard.
Moreover, why such strong statement ? For instance, MPEG-1 / MPEG-2
are both really successfull standard and good technology. We could
argue also about royalty free standard that were never adopted but
I wont.
Anyway, I will not continue this discussion as it shows the lack of
understanding and subjective positions, probably because you see ISO
as the standardisation evil. Technology is for me the only subject,
no matter the standard as soon as it is open, no matter the license
fee as soon as it is _fair and reasonnable_ ;)
Best regards,
Claude.
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
