• To: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>
• Subject: Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call that a standard?)
• From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
• Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:04:43 +0100
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <409131D9.4070603@a...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F730@h...> <409131D9.4070603@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030704 Debian/1.4-1

David Megginson wrote:

> The fact is that ISO never did well with computer technology, either 
> before *or* after XML.  We use the four-layer DoD networking stack, not 
> the seven-layer ISO/OSI stack, and we look to the IETF, not ISO, for our 
> protocols.  Even modest computer tech successes like SGML have been rare 
> for ISO.

The seven-layer stack is joint ISO/ITU-T thing, and the ITU-T has done 
OK in telecoms - V.* modems, I.* ISDN stuff, and G.* ADSL stuff are all 
pretty de-facto these days...

But anyway. Having looked into a lot of them, I've always got the 
impression that the ISO/ITU-T standards would be lovely to work with, 
but lack mindshare - they're not marketed very well.

Perhaps if national governments mandated that all software sold in that 
country had to comply with existing data format / protocol / API 
standards, where possible... :-)

> 
> David
> 

ABS

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call that a standard?)
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• References:
  • RE: You call that a standard?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call thata standard?)
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: You call that a standard?
• Next by Date: RE: You call that a standard?
• Previous by thread: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call thata standard?)
• Next by thread: Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call that a standard?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread