TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: "Philip Johnson (E-mail)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 16:17:02 -0400
Reply-To: Stephen Leake <[log in to unmask]>
From: Stephen Leake <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <9C145EE9DC1CD5118E92009027D6C0C1B905F0@FRIDGE>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (26 lines)
Johnson Phillip E <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> > I was only objecting to your use of the word "standard", not arguing
> > the technical points.
> >
> > However, many people (me included) claim that true standard-compliant
> > software is inherently better, simply because is it more reusable, and
> > more easily understood. That is what allowed the World Wide Web; the
> > existence of public standards.
> You have just negated your own argument.  The World Wide Web is not based on
> public standards but rather recommendations and specifications from the
> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).  The W3C is made up of a membership that is
> comprised (largely) of corporations.  By your narrow interpretation of what
> qualifies as a standard the Web must not be very reusable.  :^{)

Hmm. I agree W3C is not ANSI or ISO, but my impression was that they
have a similar consensus-based process; a breif perusal of the process
document at confirms this. At the very least, it is
several companies setting the standard together, not one.

So now we are defining the word "public" :).

-- Stephe