> The problem is knowing where a controversy is genuine or
> manufactured. If
> the only rule is non-controversy, very few standards would
> pass. Anyone
> remember just how controversial XSD was (still is in some
> circles) or XML Namespaces?
I don't think either of those got fast-tracked through ISO.
The point is that fast-track is a process for getting a standard that is
already published by a member body (in this case ECMA) ratified quickly when
there is a high level of consensus. If there is opposition, then it's an
inappropriate process - regardless of the technical merits or the reasons
for the opposition.
For one person's summary of other national body responses, see
http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=2007022819130536
Presumably a country votes yes if it believes that the existence of the
standard is in that country's economic interests. I would think this is only
distantly related to the technical quality of the specification.
In practice, of course, many countries will vote based on the opinions of a
small number of individuals, who will not always take a purely objective
approach to the decision...
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
