>> So what you're saying is that we should let somebody make up some 
>> mangled mess of a system, and then stamp it as a "standard", rather 
>> than designing something properly?
> 
> No. I'm saying that if you're going to standardize something, you should 
> either standardize what people are already doing, or standardize what 
> people aren't yet doing, rather than trying to "standardize" what people 
> are already doing but in a different way.

Wait - so you're saying you should write the standard before people 
start trying to implement stuff?

That at least makes sense.

>> Stuff like making something like Flash a standard rather than 
>> designing SVG? And the single proprietry implementation should be the 
>> standard spec?
>>
>> Isn't that exactly why everybody's so upset with the MS document 
>> "standard"?
> 
> You obviously missed the part where I mentions "multiple inteoperating 
> implementations available to the public", right?

It just seems to me that the chances of (say) two companies both 
deciding to invent something like USB at the same time, and it being 
interoperable, are so vanishingly small as to not be worth even 
considering. You need a standard to work to or nothing will ever 
interoperate.

Post a reply to this message