[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I for one, would not want it any other way. I suggest others at least
consider following your example, Bob.
Ciao,
Rex
At 5:23 PM -0400 4/4/04, Bob Wyman wrote:
>Rex Brooks wrote:
>> 1. It is difficult to sound reasonable while saying
>> on the one hand, "Yeah I mostly agree with you,"
> I recognize that and appreciate your quandary. Also, I know
>that either publicly or privately, many of the members of the OASIS
>CAP TC have also said that they recognize that many of my criticisms
>are valid. However, it is clear that the TC members as a whole valued
>having a standard -- even one that is flawed and contains "non-truths"
>-- as more important than accepting the delay of cleaning up the mess
>and voting on a less flawed document. In the context of this specific
>discussion, I think it is clear that it was massively easier for such
>thinking to prevail in a loose and non-rigorous environment like OASIS
>then it would have been in other standards forums (like ISO or IETF)
>which value more highly the quality, correctness and utility of their
>specifications. (Yes, I know that even others have made mistakes...)
>
>> True, yes, but mostly spilt milk and yesterday's papers. Bob
>> didn't get sufficiently involved to affect the course of how
>> this standard came into being until after the public review
> Whether or not I became involved in a timely fashion is
>irrelevant. The point is that I identified numerous severe problems
>with the specification prior to its acceptance as a standard by OASIS.
>In virtually any other standards organization, at least some of the
>problems I found would have been considered "show-stoppers." What
>mystifies me is how the review process could have been so flawed that
>it was possible for an XML "amateur" like myself to find so many flaws
>in this spec. (I am not an XML expert! Many of the members of *this*
>list will readily and happily attest to that!) Clearly, the public
>review was inadequate. This is simply another indictment of both the
>OASIS process and the CAP process. Little details like the fact that
>the CAP XML Schema uses "prohibited" elements in at least 10 places
>should never have lived through any proper review process. Similarly,
>I find it impossible to accept that a well run public review process
>would not have had at least one person wonder: "If CAP claims to
>provide encryption and signature facilities, where are they?"
> I have received much comment on my criticism of CAP. Some have
>suggested that I have some commercial agenda to push. I do not. Some
>have suggested that I am simply a "gadfly" who loves to attack these
>things. I am not. Others have suggested that it is "unkind" to
>criticize the work of others so publicly. Well, life in the standards
>world ain't pretty... I have even received veiled threats from a
>prominent member of the TC who claims that the OASIS lawyer has
>suggested that my criticisms are somehow inappropriate...
> Nonetheless, as flawed as CAP is, I recognize that the goal of
>the CAP effort is a good one and will do everything in my power to
>clearly identify not only problems but also productive ways to move
>ahead. But, don't expect me to be quiet or even polite in this
>process. CAP is a "life and death" protocol upon which *my* life, the
>life of my daughter and others who I love, may one day depend. I will
>not take it lightly. Nor be silent so as to be "sporting" or appear to
>be a "good guy." Certainly, I will not treat it as lightly, as
>irresponsibly, and as casually as OASIS appears to be prepared to have
>it treated.
>
> bob wyman
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request
|
