OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] XUL Standardization: Lessons from the RSS Civil War

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

>> I would really like to hear Dave's position 
>> on all of this.

>Gimme a break.  Nobody has ever suggested that Dave hasn't been up-front 
>about all this; check out scripting.com.  Furthermore, if you check out 
>Sam Ruby's space at intertwingly.net, and what I've had to say at 
>www.tbray.org/ongoing, plus Mark Pilgrim's history of how we got here at 
>diveintomark.org, you will discover that rarely has any piece of 
>microhistory been so transparent.  Draw your own conclusions.  -Tim

I will, but you have to admit using those sources is  
a lot like trying to decide a case by reading 
the newspaper reports about it.  Let me try to 
summarize what I'm seeing based on the public 
and private email so far and please tell me if 
the points are right even if my inferences are 
mistaken or simply, point of view:

1.  Netscape originated RSS in some form.  Userland 
picked up the ball and ran with it.

2. Userland has controlled the editing of the specification 
and does (?) own a copyright on that.

3. Userland has been reluctant to enable a process by 
which non-Userland contributors could make decisions 
about the contents of that, reserving to itself the 
perogative to decide what is in and what is not.

4.  The non-Userland contributors have come to consensus 
that it is time for the specification to evolve and 
refuse to work with the copyright owner of the currently 
authoritative specification to make that happen given 
a perception and a history that implies the evolution 
will not occur in a timely manner or in accordance 
with the consensus.  (Let's skip the personalities 
here for a moment.  I don't think not liking or 
liking dave's style should be the issue.)

Umm... isn't that pretty much what the SGML ERB did?
Many could propose but only the self-selected group 
could dispose and decide.  ISO had the copyrights for 
ISO 8879, but XML was created as a subset and the 
normative reference maintained.  The end result was a 
specification that is a subset of an international 
standard but is itself the property of the consortium.

Will the approach you advocate result in:

1. Ownership and control of the specification by a 
consortium or private interests. (I note you suggest 
the IETF and for the reasons you give, I agree.)

Sun announced Java and promised it would become an 
open specification and a standard.  Only after it 
was adopted did they reverse that strategy and hold 
on to the brand.  Subsequent suits against MS have 
enforced the brand but failed to make it legally 
required for MS to distribute the product.  Has 
this been a beneficial approach?  Cui bono?

2.  Certain domination of the product market by 



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS