On CHOW: How to brine your holiday turkey
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 18 of 48:
Next »
« Previous
If only it worked like that
ECMA doesn't work like that.
For MS to get their 1900 page document to be accepted they
first have to submit it as a 'contribution'.
Most TC chairs won't accept a whole document like this as a
contribution - they tag it as source material.
Everyone on any Technical Committee has the right to submit
contributions.
Before a standard leaves ECMA there is usually a Protocol
Implementation Conformance Statement [PICS] that details when
an implementation of the standard conforms and when it only
partially conforms.
MS have no hope of getting a bunch of real techies who are not
MS employees to write a PICS which lets MS pass of a whole de-
facto standard as an ECMA standard.
The TC then has to accept the contribution before it can be
worked on.
ECMA are very good at ensuring that their standards are open
and workable - MS is going to have to give up most of its IPR in
the document before it can be contributed.
The ECMA process then looks to see what other work is being
done in the same field and official liaisons are established with
those groups.
Indeed most contributions to ECMA are part or all of a
proprietary design that a particular company would like to get
standardized. The real work goes into the consensus and
compromise needed to ensure that the other two stages of
voting are successful.
We were a small company working in Call Center statistics and
needed to bias the output from the major manufacture's
switches to favor our product. The whole process took years but
we were able to insert messages into data that made the
standard more complete and also have prior knowledge of the
development directions within the companies who participated
in the standardization work.
So long as their are a few companies who want MS to produce a
proper open standard participating in the TC then the only way
for MS to get a standard via ECMA is for them to compromise.
This is a huge opportunity for IBM, Sun et al to work on a truly
open standard - but will they participate - sadly IBM say no sad
Posted by: Roger Huffadine   Posted on: 12/22/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Do they have their people working everywhere??  Turazoor | 12/21/05
Why partake in an obvious biased committee? (NT)  ju1ce | 12/21/05
How do you know its biased  Michael Kelly | 12/21/05
To answer your question  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/21/05
I'm not saying I don't agree  Michael Kelly | 12/21/05
Not nearly as many places as does IBM.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/21/05
I support IBM  nucrash | 12/21/05
That may be so  Michael Kelly | 12/21/05
Exactly  zztong | 12/21/05
Well said  rapson | 12/21/05
Key difference  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/21/05
Hope Sutor doesn't get overridden  mvaar | 12/21/05
Comeon IBM. Just put some gravy on the dogfood.  osreinstall | 12/21/05
IBM are talking RUBBISH  Roger Huffadine | 12/21/05
Thank you for an excellent post Roger!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/21/05
Agree.  zztong | 12/21/05
Good post Roger, but....  WiredGuy | 12/21/05
If only it worked like that  Roger Huffadine | 12/22/05
Well...  zkiwi | 12/26/05
More agreement  georgep_z | 12/21/05
Have you read the charter?  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/21/05
IBM appologist?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/21/05
Is this the same IBM that had the NetSphere "standards" rubber stamped?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/21/05
Interesting assumption  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/21/05
Same as you do when I point out facts about MS.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/21/05
Projecting again, Don  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/21/05
It only means that IBM does NOT care about MS's "open" standard.  michael_t | 12/21/05
What are you complaining about?  balsover | 12/21/05
And that's the key  rapson | 12/22/05
You got that right.  osreinstall | 12/22/05
IBM sits out Office document standards effort  rchardon@... | 12/21/05
Dude, it is IBM that has been whinining about Java...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/21/05
Dude, I think he means...  The King's Servant | 12/21/05
Standards are WORTHLESS unless if they are royalty free OPEN specifications  xunil skcor | 12/21/05
Remove cluelessness, read the license. It is royalty free.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/21/05
100% agreement  dzash2000 | 12/21/05
Why swim with the shark?  Jick | 12/21/05
If you can't swim with the big boys, go home.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/21/05
I also agree...  Cayble | 12/21/05
IBM's good choice  PhilippeV | 12/21/05
Open Schmopen, someone owns the license.  osreinstall | 12/21/05
At least I am convinced thath MS is adopting the open  michael_t | 12/21/05
MS will create collaborative lock-in via database engine +  interoperate | 12/21/05
You mean like Oracle, SyBase, DB2???  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/21/05
You missed the point  interoperate | 12/22/05
IBM waiting to show it's patent on something else  Boot_Agnostic | 12/22/05
IBM sits out office standard.  elements | 12/24/05
MS Office XML is rubbish, so why invest effort  hipparchus2001 | 12/24/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here