On 14 Mar 2002, Pete Chown wrote: > Peter Donald wrote: > > > ie If we could set up a decent process and work with other standards > > organizations (ECMA, IEEE, W3C), have a relatively formal > > participation contract (and thus *safe* from eyes of corporate/IP > > lawyers) and finally make allies of organisations like IBM, Apple > > and whoever else then it would be viable for many things. > > This would be good. Open source software has a strong position in the > web marketplace. It should be possible to use that position to gain > influence in standards processes. The IETF is an open body that sets > network standards; why can't there be a similar body that standardises > APIs?
Please, not another standard body !!! Could someone check the definition of 'standard' ? "Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence" It is not "something with the word 'standard' in the title", nor does it require a 'standard body' to give it this status. Apache httpd is a standard. Log4j is a standard. At lest 1/2 of the stuff that comes out of JCP is not standard ( by this definition ), even if it has the word standard in title and a standard body to put a stamp on it. We are talking about APIs - and my opinion is a good API requires a lot of feedback and iterations - that's not what the 'public review' can even be close to providing. No expert or expert group can substitute that, regardless of how good he is. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
