• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ISO turns evil?
• From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:29:48 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3F70F0D9.8000409@c...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9ECB2@h...><1064350468.3973.9.camel@z...><3F70F0D9.8000409@c...>

Thomas B. Passin writes:

 > But in fact, if you want to build an aircraft you have to get it
 > certificated (not including home-builts, but you still have to have
 > a lot of paperwork for them), and that costs a lot of money.  That
 > is not really distinguishable from paying to use standards , in a
 > way.

The aircraft type certificate is a specification but not a standard --
it is not intended to promote interoperability.  Better aviation
examples might be TERPS, ATA 100, or ATA 2100, which are all
royalty-free to implement (though you have to pay to obtain copies of
the ATA specs).


All the best,


David

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ISO turns evil?
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• References:
  • RE: ISO turns evil?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • RE: ISO turns evil?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
  • Re: ISO turns evil?
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ISO turns evil?
• Next by Date: Re: ISO turns evil?
• Previous by thread: Re: ISO turns evil?
• Next by thread: Re: ISO turns evil?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread