[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: To be a standard or not to be a standard

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: To be a standard or not to be a standard
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 17:39:54 +1100
• References: <LEEOLHFCOBHIBMPBAGGCCEEIENAA.keith@w...>

For definitions of "Standard" see

    http://www.iso-standards-international.com/what.htm

A central part of ISO Standards is that they are conceived of as "agreements"
between stakeholders, which may be distinguished I guess from technology 
imposed from above.  However, of course, because member bodies can
be stacked with people representing commercial interests, it is quite possible
that an ISO or national standard represents a minimal standard:  we have
a court case here in Australia at the moment where ventilation standards allegely 
ignored requirements for coping with passive smoke, and the standards committee
had a member allegedly in the pocket of a tobacco company. 

From the POV of a standard being an agreement between (funded, organized)
stakeholders, the W3C Recommendataions can be considered standards.
However, because the W3C has no commitment to longevity (indeed, stakeholders
tied to product cycles may not be more interested in regular change) I think
people should avoid using "Standard" for W3C specs:  people adopt standards
not only to simplify their lives and reduce disagreement, but also because they
want a certain level of quality, conformance and medium-term stability.  

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • RE: To be a standard or not to be a standard
    • From: "Keith W. Boone" <keith@w...>

• Prev by Date: So long, fair well, auf weidersehn, good bye
• Next by Date: Re: RDF and the new releases
• Previous by thread: RE: To be a standard or not to be a standard
• Next by thread: RE: To be a standard or not to be a standard
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread