Alternatives to the W3C

[David Megginson]

"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl at simonstl.com> writes:

> Is there any chance of forming the ad hoc group that Michael describes
> above, using as open a model as possible?  The IETF and the W3C appear to
> have moved beyond their cease-fire to a peace treaty, so I don't think the
> IETF is an option for such work.  Similarly, it's not clear that OASIS
> (which charges fees, but at least the level is much lower) would be
> interested in work that might well compete with W3C initiatives.

It might be a lot more useful to start by getting an informal group of
2-4 vendors or developers together, publishing a simple, open spec,
and providing interoperable software that implements it.  If the world
needs it, it will jump at it, and then you can hand over the spec to a
standards body for formalization; otherwise, the world will simply
yawn.

Note how much of what we use was developed or is being developed this
way (a small group of developers or vendors, a public spec, and
running software first; formal standardization afterwards, if demand
warrants): consider HTML, ECMAScript, Java and its dependent specs (I
hope, if we can even pry Sun's fingers loose), SAX, OpenGL, and so on.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.