[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: xml-dev
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Should the XML "recommendation" have an expiration date?
From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe () allette ! com ! au>
Date: 2013-03-05 14:07:52
Message-ID: CADUdYQU=HO5ro20LqhULju-PT9VhppEM4xMxZPXPx6ze1sakbg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
>> Is it ISO or maybe ANSI that charges for standards documents ? I forget
>> which.
> Both.
Not all. Schematron and RELAX NG and DSDL are free as PDFs. Linux standard
base, ODF, OOXML, MPEG 4 as PDFs, are costless too. Often, if the standard
is a conversion of an existing spec from elsewhere that is available free,
such as from OASIS or ECMA, you would expect it to be free at ISO too.
See
http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html
Some committees don't bother to request the free distribution option: I
don't know why PDF/X and PDF/A are not on the list for example. Few of the
ISO standards are small enough to be implemented by enthusiastic, poor,
casual amateurs, and charging prices re-enforces that. However, the days
when only rich corporate, (com, gov, mil, ac) types could implement
computer programs, are long gone.
For people's interest: recent withdrawn standards include an explanatory
part of ISO PDF/X and a registration procedure relating to security.
Cheers
Rick
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Tim Cook <tim@mlhim.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:28 PM, David Lee <dlee@calldei.com> wrote:
> > We should start with the various national legal systems, see how that
> goes
> > :)
> >
> > * All laws shall expire after 10 years unless voted to re-instate.
> >
> > I think that would be awesome.
>
> +++1
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > But seriously, how does ISO differ from W3C from a business perspective ?
> >
> > I am always a tad curious what the real business of standards committees
> and
> > how it varies across committees.
> >
> > Is it ISO or maybe ANSI that charges for standards documents ? I forget
> > which.
>
> Both.
>
>
> >
> > That income then funds future development.
> >
> > W3C doesn't charge for the standards, instead gets income from members (
> who
> > in turn get to influence the standards).
> >
> > That business dynamic may well influence the concept of retiring
> standards
> > as opposed to simply not working more on them.
> >
> > Just totally guessing here ....
>
> Surely it is part of the business equation; or it wouldn't exist. But
> to not be too cynical. I think there are good reasons for having a
> mandatory review time frame. I think that W3C just hasn't been around
> long enough yet to have seen the need that ISO sees. But the time
> will come when it does.
>
> The specific case that I am aware of is with ISO 13606, and yes
> technologies that affect it have changed (especially XML) and that may
> well effect portions of that specification.
>
> --Tim
>
>
> ============================================
> Timothy Cook, MSc +55 21 94711995
> MLHIM http://www.mlhim.org
> Like Us on FB: https://www.facebook.com/mlhim2
> Circle us on G+: http://goo.gl/44EV5
> Google Scholar: http://goo.gl/MMZ1o
> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>>> Is it ISO or maybe ANSI that charges for \
standards documents ? I forget<br> >> which.<br>
<br>
> Both.<br>
<br></div>Not all. Schematron and RELAX NG and DSDL are free as PDFs. Linux standard \
base, ODF, OOXML, MPEG 4 as PDFs, are costless too. Often, if the standard is a \
conversion of an existing spec from elsewhere that is available free, such as from \
OASIS or ECMA, you would expect it to be free at ISO too. <br> <br></div>See<br> <a \
href="http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html">http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html</a><br><br><div>Some \
committees don't bother to request the free distribution option: I don't know \
why PDF/X and PDF/A are not on the list for example. Few of the ISO standards are \
small enough to be implemented by enthusiastic, poor, casual amateurs, and charging \
prices re-enforces that. However, the days when only rich corporate, (com, gov, mil, \
ac) types could implement computer programs, are long gone. <br> \
</div><br></div><div>For people's interest: recent withdrawn standards include an \
explanatory part of ISO PDF/X and a registration procedure relating to security. \
<br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers<br>Rick<br></div> \
<div><br><div><div><div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div \
class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Tim Cook <span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:tim@mlhim.org" target="_blank">tim@mlhim.org</a>></span> wrote:<br> \
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:28 PM, \
David Lee <<a href="mailto:dlee@calldei.com">dlee@calldei.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> We should start with the various national legal systems, see how that goes<br>
> :)<br>
><br>
> * All laws shall expire after 10 years unless voted to re-instate.<br>
><br>
> I think that would be awesome.<br>
<br>
</div>+++1<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> But seriously, how does ISO differ from W3C from a business perspective ?<br>
><br>
> I am always a tad curious what the real business of standards committees and<br>
> how it varies across committees.<br>
><br>
> Is it ISO or maybe ANSI that charges for standards documents ? I forget<br>
> which.<br>
<br>
</div>Both.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
><br>
> That income then funds future development.<br>
><br>
> W3C doesn't charge for the standards, instead gets income from members ( \
who<br> > in turn get to influence the standards).<br>
><br>
> That business dynamic may well influence the concept of retiring standards<br>
> as opposed to simply not working more on them.<br>
><br>
> Just totally guessing here ....<br>
<br>
</div>Surely it is part of the business equation; or it wouldn't exist. But<br>
to not be too cynical. I think there are good reasons for having a<br>
mandatory review time frame. I think that W3C just hasn't been around<br>
long enough yet to have seen the need that ISO sees. But the time<br>
will come when it does.<br>
<br>
The specific case that I am aware of is with ISO 13606, and yes<br>
technologies that affect it have changed (especially XML) and that may<br>
well effect portions of that specification.<br>
<br>
--Tim<br>
<br>
<br>
============================================<br>
Timothy Cook, MSc <a href="tel:%2B55%2021%2094711995" \
value="+552194711995">+55 21 94711995</a><br> MLHIM <a href="http://www.mlhim.org" \
target="_blank">http://www.mlhim.org</a><br> Like Us on FB: <a \
href="https://www.facebook.com/mlhim2" \
target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/mlhim2</a><br> Circle us on G+: <a \
href="http://goo.gl/44EV5" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/44EV5</a><br> Google \
Scholar: <a href="http://goo.gl/MMZ1o" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/MMZ1o</a><br> \
LinkedIn Profile:<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook" \
target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook</a><br> \
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic