Standard and open have historically had a very small intersection. Most ANSI
and ISO standards cost thousands of dollars per copy.
IAC, Java is not a standards based language. It's a succesful vendor defined
language. With any meaningful definition of standard, the only interfaces
that meet it are the CORBA bindings and the xml ones under org.w3c.
I assume the definition sought here is the inverse of the US definition of
obscenity?
What about (eg one defined through the JCP, or by the OMG, or by the W3C, or
other similar body)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] The Commons
on 3/7/01 5:21 AM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about:
>
> 7. In general, packages should provide an interface and one or more
> implementations of that interface, or implement another standard
> interface (e.g. one defined by Sun).
-1
I don't like the implication that something defined by Sun is a standard.
To me, a standard is something that is open. Sun isn't open.
-jon
--
If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to take
your pain to new levels. --Anonymous
<http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/ymtd/ymtd.html>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>This electronic mail transmission
may contain confidential information and is intended only for the person(s)
named. Any use, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify
the sender via e-mail. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
