Perhaps the comparison to the xml-stylesheet PI is insufficient, and an
association PI will never warrant recognition under a standards body.
The effort to harmonize you seek is more comparable to EXSLT, a
"community initiative".
I agree with B. Tommie regarding the checklist tendency. I've also seen
corporate types accept a poor practice because it was given a buzzword
and the appearance of standards compliance. But that's a general problem
in this industry.
It might mitigate the concern if the PI were a nameless, minor,
non-normative appendix attached to some other initiative. But if it is
such a quick and ad-hoc thing, just a matter of vendors agreeing with
one another on what they already do, why not just do it outside of a
standards track? If EXSLT could be brought together through individual
effort, surely a few editor vendors can agree on one PI.
Jirka Kosek wrote:
> B Tommie Usdin wrote:
>
>> Following this logic, it would never be legitimate for anyone every to
>> argue not to standardize anything; if anybody wants a standard we have
>> to have it. This makes be quite uncomfortable because there is so much
>> pressure on so many people to adhere to every possible standard.
>>
>>> For me it is evident that there is a need for some ad-hoc mechanism.
>>
>>
>> There are ad hoc mechanisms. You want to replace the ad hoc
>> mechanisms with a standard.
>
>
> There is probably some misunderstanding here. By using word
> "standardize" I don't mean "put ISO/W3C/OASIS stamp on it" and force
> everyone to use it. I mean: "Sit down and think. We have <?foo in
> product A, <?bar in product B, <?other in proposal from C, ... They
> have the same semantics. So lets replace them with one uniform
> instruction <?schema. It would allow better interoperability between
> tools (that currently uses proprietary instructions) and users will be
> more happy. No one loses."
>
> This would be sufficient from my point of view. The same way as SAX
> interface was "standardized".
>
> I suppose that you live in USA, and there is probably completely
> different legal system in the area of standards. In my country if
> there is ISO standard for something there is no law saying that you
> must conform to it. This is valid only in some areas which are more
> regulated. But if you must adhere to all ISO standards that are
> published in some area then I can understand your resistence against
> new real standards.
>
> Would you be more comfortable with some schema association proposal if
> it is named "informal community agreement" instead of "standard"?
>
> Jirka
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rng-users/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
