• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• To: "'Len Bullard'" <cbullard@h...>,"'Robin Cover'" <robin@o...>
• Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:59:41 +0100

> The problem is knowing where a controversy is genuine or 
> manufactured.  If
> the only rule is non-controversy, very few standards would 
> pass.   Anyone
> remember just how controversial XSD was (still is in some 
> circles) or XML Namespaces?  

I don't think either of those got fast-tracked through ISO. 

The point is that fast-track is a process for getting a standard that is
already published by a member body (in this case ECMA) ratified quickly when
there is a high level of consensus. If there is opposition, then it's an
inappropriate process - regardless of the technical merits or the reasons
for the opposition.

For one person's summary of other national body responses, see

http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=2007022819130536

Presumably a country votes yes if it believes that the existence of the
standard is in that country's economic interests. I would think this is only
distantly related to the technical quality of the specification.

In practice, of course, many countries will vote based on the opinions of a
small number of individuals, who will not always take a purely objective
approach to the decision...

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Results of Open XML balloting at INCITS
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • RE: Results of Open XML balloting at INCITS
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <rjelliffe@a...>

• References:
  • RE: Results of Open XML balloting at INCITS
    • From: Robin Cover <robin@o...>
  • RE: Results of Open XML balloting at INCITS
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>