|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 30 Nov 2009 04:04:55
Message: <4b138ab7$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (I have no idea what the W3C standards process is. I just read the
>> specs.)
>
> Right. And what reason do you have to believe that *anyone* does or will
> follow those specs?
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?
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"?
(Not that your claims are unfounded - AFAIK, nobody has implemented the
CSS3 drop shadow properties, for example. But then, that's a fairly
dubious feature in the first place...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 30 Nov 2009 10:50:42
Message: <4b13e9d2$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> (I have no idea what the W3C standards process is. I just read the
>>> specs.)
>>
>> Right. And what reason do you have to believe that *anyone* does or
>> will follow those specs?
>
> 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.
And when you're trying to standardize communication mechanisms, you should
probably strive to ensure interoperability, given that it's, you know,
communication and all that.
> 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?
> (Not that your claims are unfounded - AFAIK, nobody has implemented the
> CSS3 drop shadow properties, for example. But then, that's a fairly
> dubious feature in the first place...)
That's exactly my point. Nobody follows the standard because they're
prescriptive and made up out of whole cloth.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 30 Nov 2009 10:57:27
Message: <4b13eb67@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 30 Nov 2009 13:22:07
Message: <4b140d4f$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Wait - so you're saying you should write the standard before people
> start trying to implement stuff?
Or after it's already finished. One or the other. Don't try to standardize
what's already widely deployed unless what you're standardizing is the parts
that are common to everyone.
>> 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.
No. They can work together to make the standard, and then not accept the
standard as a standard until it's already working. That's the IETF and ISO
standards process.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 1 Dec 2009 04:31:02
Message: <4b14e256$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
>
> No. They can work together to make the standard, and then not accept the
> standard as a standard until it's already working. That's the IETF and
> ISO standards process.
So... why is the finished standard specificstion called a "request for
comments"? This has always bothered me...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 1 Dec 2009 11:32:03
Message: <4b154503$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> So... why is the finished standard specificstion called a "request for
> comments"? This has always bothered me...
History. :-) There are a number of phases it goes through, including
proposal, draft standard, recommended standard, and (I think) required
standard. There are also requests for comments that aren't intended to ever
turn into standards.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 1 Dec 2009 11:49:29
Message: <4b154919$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> So... why is the finished standard specificstion called a "request for
>> comments"? This has always bothered me...
>
> History. :-) There are a number of phases it goes through, including
> proposal, draft standard, recommended standard, and (I think) required
> standard. There are also requests for comments that aren't intended to
> ever turn into standards.
And yet, if you look up the defintion of (say) the Routing Information
Protocol, it's defined in RFC 2453. Which makes it sound like they're
*requesting* people to comment on a possible standard, rather than
*defining* a finished standard.
History, I guess. Much like the way that a parcel traveling by car is a
shipment, and a parcel travelling by ship is cargo... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 1 Dec 2009 12:05:08
Message: <4b154cc4$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> And yet, if you look up the defintion of (say) the Routing Information
> Protocol, it's defined in RFC 2453. Which makes it sound like they're
> *requesting* people to comment on a possible standard, rather than
> *defining* a finished standard.
They were, when it was an RFC. See the line lower down, where it
says "STD: 56"? That's the standard. :-)
The things start as an RFC. When they're done adjusting to the comments
received from the request, they get standardized, they get a number, and
it's still the same RFC. It's just an RFC where nobody had any comments
about it that weren't addressed. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 1 Dec 2009 16:38:58
Message: <4b158cf2$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And yet, if you look up the defintion of (say) the Routing Information
>> Protocol, it's defined in RFC 2453. Which makes it sound like they're
>> *requesting* people to comment on a possible standard, rather than
>> *defining* a finished standard.
>
> They were, when it was an RFC. See the line lower down, where it
> says "STD: 56"? That's the standard. :-)
And yet, they're always referred to by the RFC number. (I guess because
it came first...)
> The things start as an RFC. When they're done adjusting to the comments
> received from the request, they get standardized, they get a number, and
> it's still the same RFC. It's just an RFC where nobody had any comments
> about it that weren't addressed. :-)
Heh. I wonder if there are any RFCs where people said "hell, this is too
stupid, let's forget the whole thing"?
Worryingly, RFC 2549 does *not* fall into this category...!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 1 Dec 2009 16:45:27
Message: <4b158e77$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> And yet, they're always referred to by the RFC number.
After they're published, yes. Before they're a standard, they don't have a
number.
> Heh. I wonder if there are any RFCs where people said "hell, this is too
> stupid, let's forget the whole thing"?
Yes. They don't get numbers, and they don't really stick around.
There's also RFCs that were "draft standards" that stick around but never
move to the "standard" status.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|