Johannes Ernst wrote: > > I would agree with you that we should avoid premature standardization > for things that don't have sufficient consensus yet. > > Others argue that it is better to pick one of the alternatives as a > standard, and fix it later if needed, than to not have a standardized > facility for an important function (an argument that I understand). > > The current approach seems to be to go down the standardization route > and see how far we can go. It is certainly possible that as we go down > that route and improve the proposed specs, some of the objections will > disappear ... >
Oh, I certainly agree that having one standard is a good goal. What I don't agree with is in-fighting about who gets to work on various things. I'm not so arrogant as to implicitly believe that my ideas are better than anyone else's, but that doesn't mean I won't have a go and try things out and see how they fare. If something else turns out to be better (read: more liked by the general populace) then so be it, but I don't think anyone should be put off contributing a proposal just because someone else has decided that they "own" a particular area of thinking. _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
