Re: {Loony speculation?} Re: [xml-dev] Does the W3C allow "reference imp

[Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

True. But what about the 'ecumenical movement' to allow the respective
bodies to work together and their products to be aligned? "Surely" they
are meant to move towards greater unity aren't they. That would be helped
if some of the minimalist 'surely's can be agreed and that seems to be
happening with shared concepts of 'conformance clause', 'implementation',
'normative', keyword alignment ('MUST' = <bold>'shall'</bold>, etc) and now
I think focus could well be put on agreeing a concept of
'reference implementation' with a view to aligning the rules about what place
they MUST or MUST NOT have in a 'standard'. But then again, some might
believe the 'tower of Babel' was a literal event in history and might inevitably
reoccur from time to time lest we all get ahead of ourselves... so maybe we
have to be content with whatever measure of unity God allows us (to keep
the religious theme).

Best regards

Steve
---
Stephen D Green




On 26 November 2010 06:40, rjelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:08:31 +0000, Stephen Green
> <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Surely...
>
> This word encapsulates one really important aspect, I think.
>
> There are personal and cultural expectations connected to documents of
> authority like standards, and how self-standing they are.
>
> Lets imagine four stereotypes: Mary is a Baptist from France: we might
> imagine that she could have a view that documents should be self-standing,
> complete and obvious (since that might be the attitude a from Bible
> believing and Code Napoleon.) Abdul is a Catholic from England: we might
> imagine that he could have a view that documents always need some
> authoritative human chain who can interpret or explain the meanings
> (relating to the magesterium and the Common Law). Willy is a Quaker from
> Japan: we might imagine that he might have a view that variation in
> interpretation is inevitable and to be coped with socially outside authority
> structures, or that truth is ineffable. Seriphina is an Orthodox Jew from
> New York: we might imagine that she has a very covenantal/contractual
> expectation about standards. (Going through every religious and legal
> tendency in the world is left as an exercise for the reader.)
>
> Now, of course, these are stereotypes and ridiculous (and anyone with
> experience would find that such imagined characteristics are  inevitably
> disappointed), but I hope the point is clear: to some extent (and I think it
> is true to larger extent than people are aware of in themselves) the issue
> of whether reference implementations should be allowed can spring out of
> what we may call cultural differences (and, primarily, individual
> personality).
>
> Some people do view standards as essential contractual documents: someone
> talking about reference implementations will be treated with bafflement. And
> the person who thinks reference implementations just make good sense may
> treat with equal bafflement someone coming along and talking about test
> suites. And the person talking about test suites may be baffled by a person
> talking about standards group engagement and "rulings".
>
>
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe
>