Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 8:51 AM -0600 2/27/01, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >That's why some people are and have always >been "sensitive" when the term "standard" >is applied to W3C specifications. The >word pollution started here in XML and if we >are now sickened by it, we have only >ourselves to slap around for that. > >We don't have to be mean about it, >but those who write a lot for media >about the subject should be scrupulous >about these terms and not wave them >off as insignificant *crap*. I quite deliberately pollute that word. I consider the W3C's use of "Recommmendation" instead of "Standard" to be disingenuous. The W3C publishes standards for all practical intents and purposes. The technical details of why they're not called standards (which change depending on who you're talking to) should all be resolved by changing the process to make them legal standards; not by being satisfied with de facto standards and de jure "recommendations". -- +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@m... | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | The XML Bible (IDG Books, 1999) | | http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/books/bible/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764532367/cafeaulaitA/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
