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] You call that a standard?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Well, I concede that my ad hoc definition is probably not the best. 
However, my point was that the fact that there is more than a single 
meaning for a term, doesn't mean it is meaningless or that it is 
sensible to extend its meaning to just about anything. Language doesn't 
work that way. You could just as well say that the word "meaning" is 
itself meaningless because there has been such great disagreement about 
its meaning throughout the history of philosophy.

Therefore, I think, it is more useful to think about what the features 
of successful standards are in contrast to unsuccessful standards 
instead of just declaring the word "standard" meaningless altogether. 
Maybe there would be less disagreement about the meaning of "standard" 
if we just see it as an after the fact classification of semi-formal or 
formal specifications that have become the norm as opposed to others 
that are the exception.

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

> Nope, what you've described is a specification. Anyone can slap a document with some rules in it one the Web. Does that make it a standard? I designed a query language for XML when I was in college and you can read the description at http://www.xmldb.org/sixdml/sixdml-lang.html/. By your definition, it is a standard. To me that is worse than meaningless. It is meaninglessness masquerading as being meaningful. 


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

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