[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Open Standards Processes
Tim Bray wrote: > To be fair, while the structure is a bit weird on the face of it, there's > a good reason. Namely, a consortium such as W3C is highly vulnerable to > litigation on antitrust and restraint-of-trade; anyone whose business > plan goes up in smoke because the W3C blessed something incompatible might > be inclined to sue, whether or not this is reasonable, simply hoping to > be bought off. If you look closely, legally, the W3C hardly exists > at all - there is a structure of contracts with MIT, Inria, and Keio, > and the decision-making is de jure done by one individual whom it would > be worth no-one's while to sue. > > In practice, the W3C management and staff do pay careful attention to > the views of its members. -Tim It is understood. I don't attribute the problems to maliciousness or conspiracy. Immaturity and inexperience are the likely culprits. I remember saying to Connoly et al some years ago that to make the HTML/HTTP systems work and remain open (the subject was the predatory practices of MS at the time), they would have to become monks vowing poverty. Sounds like that was the solution but hasn't worked. (BTW: not pounding on MS. They have played by the rules in XML. It is the rules of the W3C that are flawed. They suit the egos of some and the needs of the owners, but ultimately, are destructive.) The issue is the openness of the process, the lack of which paralyzes competition. Too often the excuse "Internet time" disallows careful consideration in open forum. Yet, Internet time also makes it too easy for any company to get the kind of market lead that eliminates competition. Only a very experienced and resourceful company such as MS was able to withstand and overcome the lead of NS in the browser market. As the twig is bent... Results and means are both important. As was feared originally, the closure of the XML process enabled it to achieve the necessary technical standard, but at a cost of the openness which characterized the goals, the means, and the individuals whose staunch ethics with regards to their work made SGML one of the truly independent standards. One price of this was SGML's disregard for the implementation/systemic requirements. The consequence of this has been discussed elsewhere. Yet the results of XML may be more limited, for while it has a perceived new quality, it is still essentially the work of Dr. Goldfarb, et al with systemic extensions. Granted, the tactic of renaming and representing it as an emerging technology freed it from the hobbling effects of years of standards wrangling followed by the well-promoted misconceptions of those who designed HTML/HTTP, it has been at the cost of surrendering it to the kind of domination which Dr. Goldfarb and the ISO working groups resisted even at great personal cost. Markup, by design, frees the information. XML, by accident or design, may result in a monopoly on the means of production. This is at the heart of the DOJ actions. The consortium members would be well served by scrupulous records and public view of the XML process should these actions ever be cited in well-financed and well-executed legal actions. That such records may not exist can be laid at the feet of the chair, the process rules, and unwillingness or inability to function in the open. So, perhaps monkdom is the only solution. It probably takes practice to be a good monk and The Director et al may not have mastered the practice. Lawsuits have no regard for the ability to recoup damages. They are often used simply to limit actions. That is the learning curve that Bill Gates refers to. Observing the DOJ actions of late, a friend and coworker observes that we may be entering a time when the societal impact of complex technologies which overlap the demands of law and contractual obligation will spawn a judiciary specialized in the adjudication of technical suits. In other words, lawyers with CS degrees, essentially, Dr. Goldfarb's background. I don't think the computer scientists are ready for the rigor of the juris disciplines. If the standards process is not reopened after this highly bizarre and somewhat unethical heisting of the international process, I do think that the W3C will become entangled in the suits emerging from the DOJ. The VRML Consortium has a much better model and it will behoove the Director to learn from it. The recommendations I made in the earlier post are sound. How odd that some will say "The HTML experience taught us the futility of the open list process" when apparently that process worked and produced a winning solution. len bullard xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
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
|