[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XUL Standardization: Lessons from the RSS Civil War
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...] Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >> I would really like to hear Dave's position >> on all of this. >Gimme a break. Nobody has ever suggested that Dave hasn't been up-front >about all this; check out scripting.com. Furthermore, if you check out >Sam Ruby's space at intertwingly.net, and what I've had to say at >www.tbray.org/ongoing, plus Mark Pilgrim's history of how we got here at >diveintomark.org, you will discover that rarely has any piece of >microhistory been so transparent. Draw your own conclusions. -Tim I will, but you have to admit using those sources is a lot like trying to decide a case by reading the newspaper reports about it. Let me try to summarize what I'm seeing based on the public and private email so far and please tell me if the points are right even if my inferences are mistaken or simply, point of view: 1. Netscape originated RSS in some form. Userland picked up the ball and ran with it. 2. Userland has controlled the editing of the specification and does (?) own a copyright on that. 3. Userland has been reluctant to enable a process by which non-Userland contributors could make decisions about the contents of that, reserving to itself the perogative to decide what is in and what is not. 4. The non-Userland contributors have come to consensus that it is time for the specification to evolve and refuse to work with the copyright owner of the currently authoritative specification to make that happen given a perception and a history that implies the evolution will not occur in a timely manner or in accordance with the consensus. (Let's skip the personalities here for a moment. I don't think not liking or liking dave's style should be the issue.) Umm... isn't that pretty much what the SGML ERB did? Many could propose but only the self-selected group could dispose and decide. ISO had the copyrights for ISO 8879, but XML was created as a subset and the normative reference maintained. The end result was a specification that is a subset of an international standard but is itself the property of the consortium. Will the approach you advocate result in: 1. Ownership and control of the specification by a consortium or private interests. (I note you suggest the IETF and for the reasons you give, I agree.) Sun announced Java and promised it would become an open specification and a standard. Only after it was adopted did they reverse that strategy and hold on to the brand. Subsequent suits against MS have enforced the brand but failed to make it legally required for MS to distribute the product. Has this been a beneficial approach? Cui bono? 2. Certain domination of the product market by IBM? len
|
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
|