On 29/08/2001 17:31:29 Lauren Wood wrote:
>The reason is to make sure this thing is of real value to OASIS member
>organizations before making them decide whether it is an OASIS standard.
>Getting that seal of approval isn't meant to be a rubber stamp; member
>companies rightly want to know why it should be approved by OASIS. And
>if you can't get 3 out of more than 200 member companies to bother to
>implement it, how useful is it?
This sounds a bit like the "not invented here" syndrome becomes "not implemented here" for OASIS. If there are already 3 useful implementations, why would we expect 200 member companies to implement the same thing? Why would we expect even 3 member companies to implement the same thing? I don't see it, I'm afraid.
What if at least 3 (or N < 10) OASIS members acknowledged that they were using implementations of an TC spec, even if they didn't write it themselves? Wouldn't that provide the kind of safety/sanity check that OASIS is apparently looking for?
Cheers,
Tony.
========
Anthony B. Coates
(1) Content Distribution Architect - Project Gazelle
(2) Leader of XML Architecture & Design - Chief Technology Office
Reuters Plc, London.
========
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
