Hi Paul,
I guess the rest of us spectators are just confused about what OpenGL would have to do to become a standard using your metrics. Where is the bar set and why are they not reaching it?
Yes, I guess that's where my confusion stems from too. I always thought an actual standard had to be ratified by an independent standards body (ANSI, ISO, CSA here in Canada, ...). In this view, a company or consortium of companies could not unilaterally say that something is a standard. Wouldn't that lead to everyone saying that what they do is standard?
I don't quite understand how open standards work, and how they're different from me just saying "here's a document that defines something, I hereby declare it standard". Where do you draw the line? I would have thought the term standard carried more weight and couldn't be just used by anyone.
However, if there's a kind of automatic self-regulation inherent to the process, kind of like how open source works (only the successful software survives, the others we barely hear about) then I see how it could work. And it certainly leads to faster innovation than having to have a big standards body that probably isn't a specialist in the specific field your standard covers review it before being accepted at each revision. I can certainly see the benefits of open standards, but I guess there's some part I'm missing because to me it just seems based on good will, which will end up not working eventually.
Anyways, I'll have to read more about that. I'd be happy to learn more about it from you guys of course.
J-S -- ______________________________________________________ Jean-Sebastien Guay [email protected] http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
