[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Apr 2, 2004, at 11:20 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> My theory: Competing specifications are not necessarily a bad thing, as
> long as:
Hmmm. I have very mixed feelings. Philosophically, I think it's a
Good Thing to get lots of experimentation and diversity before
attempting to standardize. Practically, the reliable messaging specs
are basically "TCP with angle brackets" and I don't see why there is
all this fragmentation (but I don't follow them closely). Maybe
someone can explain why OASIS wasn't empowered by the unholy alliance
to just sort this out.
>
> (1) The cost to an organization to interoperate with another
> organization (or another system within the organization) that
> implements
> a competing specification in a given functional area is either minimal
> or 0, and
> (2) The risk is either minimal or 0
>
>
I think I agree. End users appear to be just repulsed by all this and
are waiting for a cheap, risk-free option to emerge. (Ahem, that is
the whole POINT of standards, eh?????) Until then,it's not a serious
problem; it's one of those things that Business Red in Tooth and Claw
will sort out someday.
|
