[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Results of Open XML balloting at INCITS
Again, Jim, the problem is the mesh is the same size regardless of who casts the net. Controversy is easily created. Again, if we had shot down XSD and Namespaces based on that, we'd have a different toolkit today, but that is all. If there is only two ISO document formats, things won't be very different IMO. A one format system isn't a very good one. I don't work for either company. I am a tool user currently leading a team using ASP 2.0. My blog is the place to go to read my opinions not because they are controversial but because they reflect my frustrations with the current builds of tools in a fast track project. It comes down to the use from the local perspective. My question to the national reps would be what happens to my production processes if this passes or fails. That seemed to be what Massachusetts finally asked and the answer was the impact of having a coupling of policies where one could only use standards and the fact of a very substantial majority of documents being of MS types was economic and mostly bad. It would seem to be clearly in the interest of American economics that the US vote for OOXML. The interests of the actual voting parties who are NOT MS competitors (that bit I understand: business) trouble me. Why DoD would vote against it and HLS would vote for it (disregard NIST: they don't seem to have a policy that is economic) is strange. Someone inside the firewall should be looking into that and asking questions. len From: Jim Melton [mailto:jim.melton@a...] Len, Mike's point is that the *fast-track* process is not the same as the normal standards development process. Of course, there is controversy in standards development, and that's often a path towards standards' improvement (but also a path towards uselessness just to reach a compromise). But the fast-track process was explicitly designed to take specifications that have become standards in some other way, either through another (semi-) formal organization or through careful specification and widespread use, and turn them into ISO standards. But, as Mike said, that is intended only for standards that are without major controversy. The specification being discussed has been controversial -- not manufactured, but very real -- from the beginning. I could go into the reasons for the controversy (from my viewpoint, at least), but that's not the point of this message. The level of controversy involved is, IMHO, sufficient that the fast-track process should be cancelled and the specification submitted to an ISO/IEC JTC1 Subcommittee for standardization through the normal process. That might take a bit longer, but would ensure that a consensus is reached. Of course, we know that's not going to happen, because the author of the spec under discussion would refuse any compromises or even to allow another (dissenting) voice to be heard. I also agree with Mike that the USA decision (or discussion) will have much influence on other National Bodies' votes. Hope this helps, Jim P.S., Full disclosure: I work for Oracle Corp., which is one of the USA participants opposed to the USA voting "yes" on this ballot.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
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
|