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

RE: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: [xml-d ev] Yo

• To: "'David Megginson'" <dmeggin@a...>,"'XML Developers List'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: [xml-d ev] You call that a standard?)
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:16:18 +0100
• In-reply-to: <40913A11.1070209@a...>
• Thread-index: AcQuDsafZICQ3R0uRi61GNbcLfa7WQABqkGg

> 
> We can always pretend that ISO's Great Unimplemented 
> Standards would have 
> worked better than the specs that people actually use, but 
> without real 
> field experience, who knows?  Lots of designs look good on 
> paper but fall apart in the field.

X.400 actually did pretty well technically - there were lots of
implementations, millions of users, and a good level of interoperability.
The only problem was that all the vendors of X.400 solutions wanted to
charge lots of money per message, and SMTP was free. (Also, very few of the
millions of users were in the US, which makes them irrelevant.)

Today charging per message is seen as the only solution to the spam problem.
How things change.

Michael Kay

• References:
  • Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call that a standard?)
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call that a standard?)
• Next by Date: RE: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: [xml-d ev] You call that a standard?)
• Previous by thread: Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call that a standard?)
• Next by thread: Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: [xml-d ev] You call that a standard?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread