[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] What is a standard and why standards bodies won't sue you (was RE: ISOin
> > I dunno, I think considering how complex and twisted XML has become, I'd > rather write a bunch of SNMP hooks. > > --Tom > RE: What is a standard? Over the last few years, it has been my job to make determinations about what is and isn't a standard for XML.com's Resource guide and the IEEE's Internet Computing Magazine. Here's my criteria, for what it's worth: There are basically three main kinds of "standards": 1) ISO Standards (the only "real" international standards) 2) Specifications that are the deliverables of various working group charters (W3C, IETF, and whatever standards body i'm going to regret not including here -- oh yeah, OASIS :) -- where usually a minimum of 2+ years and 30+ companies and a bunch of invited experts actually lock themselves up in rooms for hours on end and figure out the best way to do something that, ideally, takes the needs of all parties the standard will affect into consideration. And the public at large often has the last word... 3) Defacto standards - Widely implemented technologies -- whether they were just the first thing to "catch on" - like .GIFs and .JPEGs - or were sort of force-fed to the point that they had to be contended with, such as WAP, or (less often) because of their usefulness and elegance, became widely adopted -- here's where SAX goes. The fact that a specification comes from the W3C or IETF or ISO does mean something, to me. It means that, for instance, a single company cannot control it -- why Sun wasn't allowed to make Java an ISO standard, for example. XML Digital Signatures are another example -- where two standards bodies -- W3C and the IETF -- had to work together to ensure a fair and technically feasible result that could be trusted and implemented by all with everyone's interests represented. Defacto standards are important too because the market has decided that they must be contended with. Re: IP and Derivative works, etc. XML is as simple now as it was when it was completed in February 1998. Simplifications of it merely complicate its simplicity :-) Seriously though: "Simplifying" XML only seems to undermine both of its creators' deliberate intentions of providing an truly international text-based data interchange format that builds on the existing work of others and is robust enough to build upon for the future. The XML W3C Recommendation's references to ISO standards are shining examples of any good specification's goal (standard or no) of building upon existing widely-implemented technologies in order to foster both backwards compatibility and future interoperability between all computing technologies (that's right, everything). And YES other languages with non-english alphabets count too (especially the buddist/asian manuscripts!!) The idea that ISO would start going after implementors is confused to say the least. Many of the people that worked on SGML for over a decade are the same people that created XML in the first place - to "fix" SGML so it could work on the Web. The W3C was the chosen forum -- rather than ISO - so it could be completed in a timely manner in order to be useful to the Web that was going to need it so badly. (Although most web users were and are still unaware of this need.) Standards bodies want their technologies be referenced by later technology specifications. It's the whole point of creating the damn things in the first place! Honest. thanks, lisa http://www.finetuning.com
|
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
|