[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: sunshine and standards development
Karl Dubost wrote: > The conspiracy theory. Even though, obviously, I think Simon is wrong and over-shrill on this, I think it is pretty poor to write off what he is saying as "conspiracy theory." Simon rattles the monkey cage on this every year. Why? Not because he is a frothing, mad-eyed, carpet-biting loon AFAIK, but because he cares about trying to find out what the role is for "the rest of us" (I have to exclude myself, since I am happily involved in the evil empire) for affecting Internet technologies at a time when they are being almost utterly corporatized. I think he is warning little more than Gearge Bernard Shaw's famous dictum "Every profession turns into a conspiracy against the public." Shrugging off criticism as "conspiracy theory" looks like evidence that it may be true. He is saying little more than questioning that we should accept "what is good for the members of W3C is good for America". I like the W3C and ISO because they have policies in place to minimize Western/English/conventionally-abled bias in their recommendations. (Though I think academia should play its social role of providing non-commercial-centered experts to counterbalance the commercial representatives more, though. And authors should have access under non-disclosure to IG records so that they can explain things better.) Homemade specs and open-source implementations have a lousy record on that. If the XML community had any idea of how XML Schemas would turn out, I have no doubt that there would have been a community project making an alternative much earlier. There is a substantial community who just want a simple language to do validation, and for whom features or writing designed to make XML Schemas fit in with XML Query has negative utility. If it seems that upcoming W3C technologies have moved XML from its "straightforwardly-usable" premise and hijacked it into some wormish system of interlocking specs which will require special tools and much brow-furrowing, of course that is an issue for concern. People are talking of XML Schemas as XML 2.0: and there are many people who don't necessarily want an XML 2.0 anything like that. After the MS decision, we cannot reasonably expect people to give large companies the benefit of the doubt that the direction they influence W3C technologies towards is always in the public interest. There are many strange decisions made in W3C specs which have a rational basis but which are not available to outsiders: I know from the questions that people ask me about XML Schemas that there are dozens of issues like this. Simon does not make things easier by injecting suspicion or rancour into the air, but he is not being utterly unreasonable. Rick Jelliffe (writing in private capacity)
|
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
|