Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: standards body parallel
 Hey Simon! Reality Check: Isn't the sheer fact that this incident even took place indisputable proof that of the success of the W3C and IETF role models? how else would the attendees know to get mad and question the process? (???!!!) Simon St.Laurent wrote: > > At 02:34 PM 10/13/00 -0400, Jonathan.Robie@S... wrote: > > > > The quotes in the article suggest that Intel should not propose an > > organization where the big players have all the power, and point Intel to > the > > IETF and the W3C as good examples to follow. > > You're welcome to read the article as painting the W3C as an angel. I > certainly didn't get that feeling from it, but recognize that we come from > rather different perspectives. 1) I don't see how you could ascertain anything positive OR negative about the W3C from that article. the w3c isn't pained as an angel in that article, it's not "painted" at all! "W3C" was only used once in one sentence. 2)Are you saying that you have a better role model for a standards body than the IETF and the W3C? Pray Tell...what that might that be? > > Again, I'm happiest to see that developers are questioning the wisdom of > centralized models in which the big players play key roles. I know that you're not comparing that shenanigan that Intel, as a corporation, tried to pull over P2P to the W3C or any of its processes Given that very > few people who use W3C specs notice the W3C, much less examine its structures > closely, I'll take it as a sign that some communities are very much awake. > > > AGAIN - don't start confusing the issues here. The The story I read had developers "waking up" to Intel's fake standards process, not criticizing the W3C's real one. Oh that's what your header was getting at -- the reference made no sense to me "standards body parallel". maybe you should read the story again in order to have a better understanding of who was coming under attack, and by whom, and why. Just cause you would have liked it to been a W3C roast, in the real world, the W3C was cited as the good guy. (or since it was barely talked about at all, it was cited more like just "a guy") Only my opinion, but I do truly believe that it is absolutely because the W3C has done such a good job at providing a role model for what a "real" standard is that the rash of wanna-be efforts (who shall remain nameless) and their propaganda machines haven't been able to make that much ground. It was too late, the word was out (the word is still out) on what a real standard is. and i continually amazed how much you are able to criticize the wc3's process, without really researching or participating or even observing the process while admitting that you don't, in fact, know anything about it personally (nevertheless, you have succeeded in spreading some nasty rumours) Simon: I believe that secretly, you truly long to be involved in everything that is W3C. You wanna be on a working group, maybe even go to a meeting a hob nob with those even vendor types - --you know the ones. --you know the ones.in the smoke filled rooms that have so much influence on the specs so you can see your name on a spec and all that kind of thing. You've just got a case of W3C envy in the worst sort of way, ya know? :-) > > In Intel's model, if you pay more money to participate, you get more power. > > In the W3C model, big companies pay a lot, small companies pay much less, > and > > everyone gets the same vote. > > Not being an insider at the W3C, I have to speculate, but there are persistent Not being a PARTICIPANT of the W3C, which is your option. and come on simon...you ALWAYS speculate :-) it ibviously doesn't bother you.... and this thread is living proof, that it doesn't bother you to do it repeadedly -- > rumors that companies with larger market share do in fact receive considerably > more deference than smaller firms whose role in making standards succeed or > fail is considered less substantial. > Now THAT'S a bald-faced lie! (that makes you a liar) too bad you've chosen to repeat heresay instead of participating in the process to confirm or delete what I believe are your paranoid delusions one way or another This is the this you don't understand about the W3C's process -- how having competitors designing specs with each that makes good standards possible. Everybody just really wants the best technology. Companies really can't effective "trap" implementors by exerting more control over the stardards process. The architechtures are to well understood now and its in every technology company's best interest to play it straight and implement all of the standards if possible. > > I found it telling that a rep from Cisco, not an independent, was suggesting > the W3C as a role model. > I find it more telling that yet AGAIN, for at least the 40th time, you have managed to start a negative thread about the W3C on the pretense of linking to an article that supposedly had something negative to do with it. and I find it even MORE pathetic, that for at least the 5th time, I have been suckered into responding to it ;-) lisa > > > > Clearly, there are fans of the IETF model, and fans of the W3C model. Both > > groups have produced influential and useful standards. > > Agreed. > Simon St.Laurent > XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. > XHTML: Migrating Toward XML > http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
