Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
A process is as transparent as the output, not the logic or co-occurrence constraints that form the business rule??? Have fun. Is this about ISO process or technical requirements? Last I looked, this is a Dev list, yes? Programmers.... coders.... what say you: Look at this as a purely implementation task. For a development group, it is a decision of the development toolkit, that is, how many patterns and representation types for an object dragged on to a page. For a document editor, it really isn't any different except that we play a lot of style games with text. OTW, HTML 1.0 + text has enough information to keep the meaning alive. Really. A strategic technical decision at the point of a commercial technology becoming a standard is what to leave out that was in the original specification. It is a good opportunity to cut bait. The current document standards wars are wars over market diversity sustained by language diversity. The competitive interests favor differentiation but the production costs (customer costs incurred for use of toolkits by virtue of the relationship of language diversity to network operation costs) punish customers. The market must converge on the dominant document standards: HTML, CSS, SVG, X3D, XSLT. You are fighting over the rights to the legacy formats. Dump as many of them as fast as you can. The world doesn't speak OOXML or ODF. It speaks HTML. The graphics formats are a bit up for grabs but that is a loss-leader economy. Hold up your hand if you are someone who frowns at HTML Exports that don't export vanilla standard (NO INSTRUCTIONS) HTML? I dunno, Rick. Maybe the truth is bad standards are standards for systems either not in enough use yet or of old technology that is increasingly irrelevant given the current frequency of the deployed builds. Frequency of use determines standard distribution as far as a grid is concerned. len From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:rjelliffe@a...] Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 1:52 PM > that are without major controversy. Where does it say that in the ISO Directives? The consensus is the final yes or no vote on the editor's instructions, not the excitement of opponents to the draft. > Of course, we know that's not going to happen, because the > author of the spec under discussion would refuse any compromises or > even to allow another (dissenting) voice to be heard. But (assuming that there is a Ballot Resolution Meeting with several or multiple nations voting "conditional yes" {No with comments}) if they don't compromise the National Bodies won't convert from no to yes and this process will terminate. How to they get a BRM not to have other voices, since that is its only purpose? Cheers Rick Jelliffe _______________________________________________________________________ XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS to support XML implementation and development. To minimize spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting. [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l... subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l... List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
