RE: [xml-dev] Results of Open XML balloting at INCITS

[Melvin Chin <mc@SoftOffice.Net>]

At 03:36 PM 2007-08-13 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>G. Ken Holman said:
> > But think of a customer asking a developer to "please create an
> > XML-based expression of this information I have that I would like to
> > maintain in a spreadsheet application, and I don't care about the
> > application but I do care about the data".  If there are no standard
> > formats, the choice is muddy.  If there are two formats to choose
> > from, a standard format and a proprietary format, the choice is
> > clear.  If there are two standardized formats, the choice is muddy again.
>
>Ask them to do the work in an ISO standard language: the choice will be
>"muddy" because they then have to figure out which one is best to use. But
>it is basic technical competence to understand the differences between the
>major technologies available, not "mud".

I think to the extent that ISO hopes for wider use of their specs,
it's not just simply basic technical competence but the fact that
it is ISO saves a lot of decision-making and scrutiny from unsuspecting,
and probably less-technically-inclined end-users from using ISO standards.

We've learned that a company with ISO-9000 certification would follow
quality processes and (probably, by inference,) provide quality products
and services.  It saves unsuspecting end consumers the need to verify
quality concerns of the company's products.  What if now we learned that
there are different choices of quality approved by ISO?  End consumers
would then need to really spend time studying the minute differences,
and decide if somewhat a company following a lesser degree of quality
process would produce safe products.  It sounds really strange and
probably ridiculous, but appears to match what Ken tries in illustration
of "mud".


cheers,
Melvin Chin