• From: Melvin Chin <mc@S...>
• To: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>, "'G. Ken Holman'" <gkholman@C...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:27:06 +0800

At 09:31 PM 2007-08-12 -0500, Len Bullard wrote:
>...
>We have to disagree on the 'only one international standard' position, Ken.
>There are side-effects that can damage international standards practice and
>culture.  Under such a policy, choice is removed along with competition.  I
>think we probably disagree on the potential severity of the first if not the
>fecundity of the latter.

Sorry Len, your use of "We" is ambiguous -- it does not include the
entire list for sure.  So who does "We" mean vs Ken?

I think Ken's words are neutral and his illustration about "one
international standard" is apt.  By "one", it does not mean literally
one for all context, but depends on targeted use and application
context.  Someone suggested JPEG & TIFF as being overlapping
so that since ISO could accept overlapping standard in the past,
it could accept more overlapping standards in future.  I'm sure
many more imaging standards experts here could tell me why
it could be objectionable or otherwise.


cheers,
mc

• References:
  • RE: Results of Open XML balloting at INCITS
    • From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@C...>
  • RE: Results of Open XML balloting at INCITS
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>