"Andreas J. Guelzow" <> wrote on 01/13/2011
07:41:41 PM:
>
> Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next
>
> On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 10:52 -0700, wrote:
> > I wonder if the impact of the problem would be reduced if we can turn
> > around standards faster? In other words, would it be more tolerable
if a
> > vendor implements a draft 6 months before the standard is finally
approved
> > compared to implementing it 2 years before approval? I think that is
> > something we have more direct control over.
> >
>
> The problem I have is when a vendor implements a certain feature from a
> draft and the specification is found wanting. Obviously there would be
> some reluctance to change a specification in a incompatible way to that
> implementation. So implementing a feature from a draft can have the
> effect of cutting off any improvements to that feature.
>
This issue has been noted in the larger tech industry. For example, the
801.11 N wifi standard took 7 years to develop. But hardware supporting
"draft" versions were in the market several years before the standard was
finalized. This creates in incumbency effect that benefited large chip
makers, who were able to simultaneously move on the market faster, but
also ensure that the standard did not change contrary to their investment.
So the effect is real. And we can certainly point to other vendors whose
practice is to release a product first, and then submit the technology for
standardization, but with committee charters that forbid incompatible
changes.
> Now if the feature were implemented using foreign elements no such
> problem would exist and if the spec does not change it would be trivial
> to change the element name/namespace to match the approved standard.
That is one approach, but not one that we (the ODF TC) have any ability to
mandate.
I suspect a standards organization that wanted to enforce something like
this could do so via their control of the trademarks associated with the
standard, e.g., they could have a policy that says you can only use the
trademark for implementations that conform to published/approved versions
of the standard, etc. But I'm not familiar with any organizations that
have that rule. It is more common among proprietary specifications, e.g.,
if you want to say "Compatible with Windows 7" on your box, then you must
follow the logo guidelines defined by Microsoft.
Regards,
-Rob
