[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: "Open XML" et al... Blech... Re: Microsoft buy
I imply no such thing. No is fine. Do-over is fine. Yes is fine. The system does favor 'yes' by the time the standards work starts. On the one hand we've said here that we favor standards from proven technologies and otherwise specifications. On the other, we quarrel over the source given it is our competitor. I don't think that is ever going to change. Standards bodies are no more monolithic in their decision making than our companies are. There are factions. One decided OOXML was worth doing. Another set out to stop it. And so go the politics of the standards game fueled by the deep pockets of the competitors and fought by volunteers and conscriptees. Very predictable. So I say again, process is all we have. It's a bit of a dance but given professional dancers, it looks good and we don't see too many toes stepped on. Pull dancers off the street, and well, it is a crowded floor. But that is the way of the web and we cope with that too. As to the BRM, Rick Jelliffe posted a good pointer to a blog that describes that as well as I've seen it described. http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry070906-201933 I'm not as concerned about the fate of OOXML or ODF as I am that the customers needs are met within financial constraints, and that we not wound the processes that do work when managed by smart experienced leaders. I am aghast at the way the OOXML v.s. ODF battle has been handled by the large companies and the bit players. But so is everyone it seems. len From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@r...] Standards bodies are supposed to make decisions. Process is a way of making decisions. "Yes" and "no" are both examples of decisions that a standards body might legitimately make. Somehow, you seem to imply that "no" is not a valid decision. Standard bodies are supposed to reach agreement among the major players. Sometimes, when one company proposes something, it doesn't yet represent agreement. Sometimes objections by the other major players are an indication that you don't yet have agreement. Usually, parties on all sides have commercial interests. A standards body has to be extremely careful that players on either side of a controversy are not allowed to play games like the ones we've seen lately. As far as I can tell, resolving the comments successfully would require significant changes to the documents, and I'm not sure that's allowed under Fast Track rules. Jonathan This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. [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
|