Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 03:07 PM 10/15/00 +0800, Rick JELLIFFE wrote: >Furthermore ISO standardization is a guarantee that a process has been >adhered to and not a guarantee the result is useful. And especially it >is not a guarantee that the result is useful on the desktop. However, >most people don't know how many things they use are benefits of ISO >standardization (characters sets, computer keyboard positions and >layouts, the meter [except in US]). OSI software has different >characteristics from TCP/IP and has been very useful for the >applications that need it. ISO has been a very successful standards >organization. Does that same guarantee apply to fast-track proposals? It seemed like fast-track was a serious change to the approach they used, allowing the process to take place outside of ISO halls. >I think the better question is "how can we make standardizing or >Standardizing bodies which create 20-page-spec technologies?" Vendors >and implementors want to have features that fit in with their >conceptions; when they get together they will compromise; the resulting >specs will always tend to be larger rather than smaller. XML edition 2 >has shrink because it can reference RFCs more, but in general specs will >get bigger over time. While it might be a lot of fun to limit specs to 20-pages (and demand readable English simultaneously), I think I'd rather reach that result by competition than by fiat. Let a lot of groups write specs, organize themselves into coalitions, and then have a genuinely neutral and accountable organization sort through the results based on quality of specs and quality and interoperability of implementation. Of course, I still haven't had my coffee this morning. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
