• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:10:44 -0700

So I take it you agree that there are significant parts of the
W3C process that follow "REC" yet precede "obsolete"?

> >(And maybe hosted by some accredited standards body!)
> 
> Define what you expect in an "accredited" body -- "accredited" by whom?

Something like ISO ... an international body that works with
the various national standards bodies.  Mature procedures,
with appropriate hooks into legal systems.

Historically, "standards" have involved some sort of enforcement
mechanism:  this is a gallon, and customers have legal recourse if
they're sold something that doesn't conform.  Say, the gas station
doesn't correct for the expansion due to summer heat ... many
weight scales must be certified too.

Of course that's exactly what a lot of software vendors are very
afraid of letting customers have, even in limited scopes such as
fully conforming to W3C specs (perhaps in order to be able to
use W3C trademarks).

• References:
  • RE: W3C press release: comments on standard-setting
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• Prev by Date: open sourced xml diff tools or package ?
• Next by Date: Re: Why XML Schema enforces UPA (was Re: a or b or both - mystery..)
• Previous by thread: Re: W3C press release: comments on standard-setting
• Next by thread: RE: So what do SOAP and XML-RPC buy you? (was Re: Massive Cross-P ost:The State of XML-RPC, April 2001)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread