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

Re: Why Standards?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Why Standards?
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 19:58:57 +0000
• In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.0.20030521142313.0452fae8@n...>
• References: <20030519152736.GB12551@p...> <3EC8E25C.7080804@a...> <5.2.0.9.0.20030519102416.0365c008@n...> <20030519152736.GB12551@p...> <3ECAF452.4000100@p...> <5.2.0.9.0.20030521142313.0452fae8@n...>

Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...> wrote:
| At 08:36 PM 5/20/2003 -0700, Paul Prescod wrote:
|> Adam Turoff wrote:

|>> The one thing that *is* clear from Jim Waldo's piece is that premature
|>> standardization, like premature optimization, is an unnecessary evil in
|>> this business.

Because every decision to standardize creates a corresponding burden of
legacy (especially when the wrong thing gets standardized.)

|> Fair enough. But when the standard comes too late, a proprietary ["de 
|> facto"] standard may have an unassailable position in the marketplace.

Nothing is forever.  Only FUD says otherwise.

| Precisely - this is the main reason that web standards tend to be done 
| in advance of widespread deployment. Also, for many web technologies, 
| interoperability matters from the beginning. 

Interoperability is firstly an attitude, on the part of the developers of
a technology.  Either they *want* to cooperate (and thus will accommodate
concerns as they are pointed out) or they don't.  If they do, they can
always start small - which is considerably easier - and grow.  "Widespread
deployment" is actually a red herring, a buzzwordish preemptive strike
*against* experimentation and innovation.  If things are done right, by
the time widespread deployment happens, interop should also be in place.

| Perhaps the W3C could have waited 5 years to standardize HTML, adopting 
| whatever form of HTML succeeded in the free market, but that might have 
| made it extremely difficult for smaller vendors and would have resulted 
| in huge incompatibilities among browsers.

Nonsense.  The Mosaic paradigm was firmly entrenched by the end of 1994.
A spec for tag soup could have RFC-ed, and the matter settled.  The *lack*
of a formal spec for tag soup (never mind that people wince at the idea)
has been the root cause of so much angst ever since. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Image and label placement
    • From: "Bruce Kulik" <bkulik@a...>
  • Re: Why Not Standards
    • From: "Ed Dodds" <dodds@e...>

• References:
  • Re: Why Standards?
    • From: Adam Turoff <ziggy@p...>
  • Why Standards?
    • From: Jim Ancona <jim@a...>
  • Re: Why Standards?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: Why Standards?
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Why Standards?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: having problems with the "|" in field's element in the xs:key el ement
• Next by Date: Re: Why Not Standards
• Previous by thread: Re: Why Standards?
• Next by thread: Re: Why Not Standards
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread