• To: "'Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)'" <clbullar@i...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: How Standards Get a Bad Reputation
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:41:11 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC48A@h...>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

>"Ruby: So what we decided to do was, instead, open source it, and say,
"Here is a 
>ubiquitous, in essence de facto reference implementation." It's not
anointed as a reference >implementation, but it achieves the same
purpose. It's our way of increasing the probability >that this
implementation of a standard is adopted."

>That's not standardization; that's marketing.


It doesn't claim to be anything else. Please explain: why does something
that isn't standardization and doesn't claim to be standardization give
standardization a bad name?

Michael Kay

• References:
  • How Standards Get a Bad Reputation
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: [Sax-devel] XInclude and SAX Incompatibility
• Next by Date: RE: xml data mining
• Previous by thread: How Standards Get a Bad Reputation
• Next by thread: XInclude and SAX Incompatibility
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread