Re: Colloquial Tidbits

On 'standardisation'

On 17 September 2011 08:43, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> Excellent. I've looked at the economics and dynamics of standardisation when I was a student three years ago. Having said that, we should be careful to really limit our scope… like having a very little project for us to collaborate on, just to see if the group can work together (as none of us is here getting paid!… and if you are, good for you :) ).
>
>> > standardisation is increasing, but not in traditional settings (e.g., the
>> > W3C). Obviously, the W3C has recognised this, which is why these
>> > community groups were created
>>
>> Which makes it quite meta that we're investigating the very process
>> that gave rise to the community groups mechanism in the first place,
>> indeed.
> :)
>>  The W3C community groups are exciting, and I wonder how much
>> further the W3C could step in the same direction.
> Well, lets hope this translates into some money for them somehow… lets just say this is a freemium model.
>>  These early groups
>> are a testbed for this, and I'm hoping that Colloquial CG will serve
>> as a kind of primary meta-analysis group.

>> Would you apply the term standardisation to cross-browser polyfills?
> Absolutely.
>> Or what about an effort like pdf.js? (I don't have a well formed
>> opinion on this, so I'm not challenging your understanding; I'm really
>> asking!)
>
> And here comes term that needs definition number 2: "standardisation". I will provide the text from my PhD around this.
>
> To answer your question above, probably would not to fall under standardisation because it's an implementation of some specification. Standardisation generally only produces specifications or guidelines that are then implemented to create products, and pdf.js didn't create the PDF spec (is there one?), even if lots of people collaborated on it. Contrast that to Common.js, or micro-formats: where an agreed set of conventions is standardised.


My view on 'standards'. A standards body/Oasis/IETF produce something.
Adoption is
the real arbiter of sucess IMHO. Namespaces? WS-*? Lots of examples.

Certainly of interest to W3C?

What do we mean by it?
Is it a success (at the higher level)
What are the successful standards?
What defines a failed/bad/weak standard?
Who cares about standards?

Lots of meat there, is it of interest to this group?


regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Received on Saturday, 17 September 2011 08:11:01 UTC