[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
<Quote>
* W3C to look after WWW protocols and specs to bring the web to its full
potential,: so HTML, XML, RDF belong at W3C
* OASIS to look after applications built on top of the WWW and ISO: so
DOCBOOK and ebXML belongs at OASIS.
</Quote>
Absolutely. As an additional perspective, I tend to view W3C and OASIS
(in very simple terms) as:
W3C -> more "vertically"-focused (standards whose "primary" focus is on
the capabilities at the desktop)
OASIS -> more "horizontally"-focused (standards whose "primary" focus is
on capabilities that span across the enterprise)
I realize that this may be viewed as inaccurate and controversial. :)
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>
> Standards bodies position themselves to address different areas. As a rough guide:
>
> * ISO/IEC to look after specs where there is need for an international consensus,
> or to rubberstamp some national or UN specifications, or for establishing
> multi-application vocabularies, for product-related standards, for artificial
> languages, and for non-Internet/non-WWW technology[1]
>
> * Unicode Consortium to look after character properties and universal encodings
>
> * IEEE to look after the lowest layers, such as ethernet
>
> * IETF to look after Internet protocols and specs, just past the transport layer:
> so MIME, and TCP/IP belong at IETF
>
> * W3C to look after WWW protocols and specs to bring the web to its full
> potential,: so HTML, XML, RDF belong at W3C
>
> * OASIS to look after applications built on top of the WWW and ISO: so
> DOCBOOK and ebXML belongs at OASIS.
>
> Then this is complicated by history: IETF has old RFCs for HTML. It is further
> complicated by using XML in protocols: should SOAP and BLOCKs be at
> IETF, W3C or OASIS? It is further complicated by party spirit: if someone
> is comfortable working in one standards body and has relationships there, it
> is natural to continue working out the ramifications of some base standard
> there (hence XML Schemas and even more tenuously XQuery?). Often there
> is more than one good way to do something: if one body puts out a spec that
> others feel is not up to scratch or misses the mark, an alternative standards
> effort will start perhaps at a standards body which is not really the nomimal best fit.
>
> I think in our virus and spam-ridden world, there may be more sympathy to the
> idea that we need to encourage viable "second-stream" technologies. Even
> though standards bodies should focus on certain areas, there is no need for
> rigid demarcations which inhibit second-steam technologies.
>
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe
>
> [1] "Standards are documented agreements containing technical specifications
> or other precise criteria to be used consistently as rules, guidelines, or definitions
> of characteristics, to ensure that materials, products, processes and services
> are fit for their purpose."
> http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
begin:vcard
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard
|
