Jean-Sébastien Guay wrote:
Hi Paul,
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.
And another thing I don't understand about open standards: if any
consortium or group can start a standard, how can anyone say that a
given open standard is *the* standard for something? Like Robert said
that OpenGL is *the* standard for graphics...
Hypothetical situation: As I see it, if Microsoft decided to make a
standards committee for Direct3D and other companies joined, it would be
just as much a standard for graphics as OpenGL is. None of the two would
be able to say they're *the* standard for graphics unless some
independent body decided that it was one or the other...
Yes, if MS did that they would have a competing open standard. Though
none of us would probably care much since the earth would have shifted
off of its axis and hurtled into the sun. ;)
As it is, they are their own declared standard. De facto. Like Windows
is a standard. Even their ISO standards are so encumbered as to really
skirt the line.
If that's the case, then the fact that there are many competing
standards is just because of the nature of open standards. And the fact
that in graphics, OpenGL is the only standard is just because no one
else has bothered making their API standard (Direct3D in this case).
Yes.
Or is there something I'm missing here too?
What if there were a world with no hypothetical questions? :)
-Paul
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
