- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:38:15 +0200
- To: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-colloquial-contrib@w3.org
On Saturday, September 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Dave Pawson wrote: > Up a level? What you have above is a definition of a 'standards document'? Correct, it's actually a "de jure" standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure_standard > I might take a view that a 'standard' is something widely used as a > common [api? format?] I see, that is referred to as a "de facto standard": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_standard > I.e. having a document is the first part (mostly necessary), the > real standard is > the next stage where the document is widely used, without (much) extension. > Is sax a 'standard' compared to html? > > Without prompting, I'd pick this adopted view, rather than the > availability of a document > as a standard? It gets complicated from here and it open up a lot of (political) rat holes (see [1], for instance)…. ever wonder why the WHATWG version of HTML is called a "Living Standard"? > Just a variant view? It's good to have all opinions out there. Anyway, we should settle on one or two tasks for the group to begin with. Kind regards, Marcos [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/05/_watching_the_google_io.html
Received on Sunday, 18 September 2011 14:38:56 UTC