[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
As the
topic changed, a reminder. Part of the problem of the confusion
and
the zealousness of supporters of organizations is that it can work
its
way into policies from policy issuing bodies. Policy bodies are
sort
of the third arm of the "standards" triumvirate. The example
I
posted last week illustrates the point. The authors of the Draft
Federal Policy for XML Developers insisted that W3C
specifications
have
primacy. In other words, if ISO has a standard in an area
and
the W3C has shown interest in that area by establishing a
working group, the W3C work has to be used.
This has a lot of
weird
side effects, of course, and the Project Manager of a Federal
work
can override that given justification, but it isn't good policy and
will
tend to be ignored. That isn't good for the issuing body or the
approving authority (eg, the OMB).
One
really really really has to look at the technology spec'd and
use
sound technical judgement. Again, quite often, the decision
will
be made based on what the favored vendor (can be MS, can be
Sun,
anyone really on the buy list) implements. One interesting
part
of the draft said that given a wall-to-wall system (eg, one that
uses
MS or Sun exclusively), the manager is free to prefer those
products.
Procurement has generally worked like this in the past,
and
except
for the nomination of the W3C even where their work may
be
inferior or incomplete, nothing much changed. Simply be aware
that
standard status isn't the only issue and even the business
decision can be affected by procurement
policies.
len
Len's point was a
fairly simple one, I think. A business decides what is a sensible solution to
standardise on based on various considerations. Sometimes it will standardise
on Microsoft technology, sometimes W3C technology, sometimes ISO technology.
It's a business decision, not typically a religious or moral
one.
Andrew Watt
| 