Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Apr 2, 2004, at 11:20 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: > My theory: Competing specifications are not necessarily a bad thing, as > long as: Hmmm. I have very mixed feelings. Philosophically, I think it's a Good Thing to get lots of experimentation and diversity before attempting to standardize. Practically, the reliable messaging specs are basically "TCP with angle brackets" and I don't see why there is all this fragmentation (but I don't follow them closely). Maybe someone can explain why OASIS wasn't empowered by the unholy alliance to just sort this out. > > (1) The cost to an organization to interoperate with another > organization (or another system within the organization) that > implements > a competing specification in a given functional area is either minimal > or 0, and > (2) The risk is either minimal or 0 > > I think I agree. End users appear to be just repulsed by all this and are waiting for a cheap, risk-free option to emerge. (Ahem, that is the whole POINT of standards, eh?????) Until then,it's not a serious problem; it's one of those things that Business Red in Tooth and Claw will sort out someday.
|
