<Quote> * W3C to look after WWW protocols and specs to bring the web to its full potential,: so HTML, XML, RDF belong at W3C * OASIS to look after applications built on top of the WWW and ISO: so DOCBOOK and ebXML belongs at OASIS. </Quote> Absolutely. As an additional perspective, I tend to view W3C and OASIS (in very simple terms) as: W3C -> more "vertically"-focused (standards whose "primary" focus is on the capabilities at the desktop) OASIS -> more "horizontally"-focused (standards whose "primary" focus is on capabilities that span across the enterprise) I realize that this may be viewed as inaccurate and controversial. :) Joe Chiusano Booz | Allen | Hamilton Rick Jelliffe wrote: > > Standards bodies position themselves to address different areas. As a rough guide: > > * ISO/IEC to look after specs where there is need for an international consensus, > or to rubberstamp some national or UN specifications, or for establishing > multi-application vocabularies, for product-related standards, for artificial > languages, and for non-Internet/non-WWW technology > > * Unicode Consortium to look after character properties and universal encodings > > * IEEE to look after the lowest layers, such as ethernet > > * IETF to look after Internet protocols and specs, just past the transport layer: > so MIME, and TCP/IP belong at IETF > > * W3C to look after WWW protocols and specs to bring the web to its full > potential,: so HTML, XML, RDF belong at W3C > > * OASIS to look after applications built on top of the WWW and ISO: so > DOCBOOK and ebXML belongs at OASIS. > > Then this is complicated by history: IETF has old RFCs for HTML. It is further > complicated by using XML in protocols: should SOAP and BLOCKs be at > IETF, W3C or OASIS? It is further complicated by party spirit: if someone > is comfortable working in one standards body and has relationships there, it > is natural to continue working out the ramifications of some base standard > there (hence XML Schemas and even more tenuously XQuery?). Often there > is more than one good way to do something: if one body puts out a spec that > others feel is not up to scratch or misses the mark, an alternative standards > effort will start perhaps at a standards body which is not really the nomimal best fit. > > I think in our virus and spam-ridden world, there may be more sympathy to the > idea that we need to encourage viable "second-stream" technologies. Even > though standards bodies should focus on certain areas, there is no need for > rigid demarcations which inhibit second-steam technologies. > > Cheers > Rick Jelliffe > >  "Standards are documented agreements containing technical specifications > or other precise criteria to be used consistently as rules, guidelines, or definitions > of characteristics, to ensure that materials, products, processes and services > are fit for their purpose." > http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
begin:vcard n:Chiusano;Joseph tel;work:(703) 902-6923 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.bah.com org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012; version:2.1 email;internet:chiusano_joseph@b... title:Senior Consultant fn:Joseph M. Chiusano end:vcard
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