Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Steven R. Newcomb wrote: > > * Because ISO standards are at their best when they are even-handedly > responsive to civilization-wide requirements, rather than merely the > shorter-sighted desires of some particular industry or consortium. > When working on ISO standards, I may not feel like I'm going to get > rich, but I know that I'm working to make all of our descendants a > lot richer. Will ISO standards pay off in that way? I don't know. > I hope so. 1. The consortium is the inner loop of set of processes that must be responsive to a hundred markets. 2. ISO is the outer loop that must be responsible to the needs of a single market. When the inner and outer loops bind values in shared namespace, the system stays stable even while dynamic. We write standards because there is a process for doing so. We use standards as a means to communicate and coordinate across time through use of precisely defined and shared understanding of a set of symbols/names. You are a musician. You already know why orchestras need scores, how they evolved, and how messy the namespace they use is (languages overlaid over time) and how difficult it is to fix that (too many of us understand andante who would be *offended* if we read *walking speed*). We make no progress as long as we remain hungry ghosts who live by draining the strengths of others. We make standards so we may rise about that low realm. Those who wish to remain pretas have found their own desires in accordance with their habits. len xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
