• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ISO turns evil?
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:42:56 -0400
• In-reply-to: <16240.62348.307500.564826@m...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9ECB2@h...> <1064350468.3973.9.camel@z...> <3F70F0D9.8000409@c...> <16240.62348.307500.564826@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030901 Thunderbird/0.2

David Megginson wrote:

>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).
>
>  
>
Of course that is true, but the effect on the aircraft manufacturer and 
the pilots isn't all that different.  I just meant that the de facto 
effect could be considered to be similar.

Cheers,

Tom P

• 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...>
  • Re: ISO turns evil?
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ISO turns evil?
• Next by Date: Re: relax ng public list?
• Previous by thread: Re: ISO turns evil?
• Next by thread: RE: ISO turns evil?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread