Comments on: A notable achievement http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/notable-achievement.html Thinking the unthinkable, pondering the imponderable, effing the ineffable and scruting the inscrutable Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:51:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/notable-achievement.html#comment-214 Rob Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:17:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/a-notable-achievement.html#comment-214 Hi Rick,<br /><br />Similarly, ODF came from OpenOffice roots, and I could tag on several additional years to that. Likewise C# had a parent specification within Microsoft, and SVG had a ancestral work at Adobe, etc. I could add more time to them. In fact most of these standards had some preparatory work done before they were submitted for standardization.<br /><br />So to compare apples to apples I'm looking at only the time within an standards development organization, since that is the only time one can claim independent review, feedback, multi-vendor participation, etc. I'm looking purely at the time from first draft submission to approval. This includes the review, editing and approval time.<br /><br />My original thought was: What is the work of a TC when presented with a draft standard from a vendor? What is their task and how long does it typically take? <br /><br />We've both worked on standards. Can you honestly tell me that OOXML is not an unprecedented abnormality? Hi Rick,

Similarly, ODF came from OpenOffice roots, and I could tag on several additional years to that. Likewise C# had a parent specification within Microsoft, and SVG had a ancestral work at Adobe, etc. I could add more time to them. In fact most of these standards had some preparatory work done before they were submitted for standardization.

So to compare apples to apples I’m looking at only the time within an standards development organization, since that is the only time one can claim independent review, feedback, multi-vendor participation, etc. I’m looking purely at the time from first draft submission to approval. This includes the review, editing and approval time.

My original thought was: What is the work of a TC when presented with a draft standard from a vendor? What is their task and how long does it typically take?

We’ve both worked on standards. Can you honestly tell me that OOXML is not an unprecedented abnormality?

]]> By: Rick Jelliffe http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/notable-achievement.html#comment-213 Rick Jelliffe Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:42:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/a-notable-achievement.html#comment-213 Good idea Rob, but I don't think your numbers are accurate. A lot of the OOXML details come from the formats in Office 2003. That gives them at least 4 years gestation. Good idea Rob, but I don’t think your numbers are accurate. A lot of the OOXML details come from the formats in Office 2003. That gives them at least 4 years gestation.

]]> By: Wesley Parish http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/notable-achievement.html#comment-212 Wesley Parish Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:03:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/a-notable-achievement.html#comment-212 Souperman! So that's what he does when he's not involved in making documentaries on his experience or saving the world! He speed-reads for Microsoft and ECMA. Souperman! So that’s what he does when he’s not involved in making documentaries on his experience or saving the world! He speed-reads for Microsoft and ECMA.

]]> By: Sam http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/notable-achievement.html#comment-211 Sam Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:47:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/a-notable-achievement.html#comment-211 Rob-<br />Those Microsoft guys are sure A+ students! Rob-
Those Microsoft guys are sure A+ students!

]]> By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/notable-achievement.html#comment-206 Rob Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:38:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/a-notable-achievement.html#comment-206 You are correct that most of the specifications I listed were hashed out in a consensus committee process.<br /><br />Is that the sole reason for the difference? I wish I could point to some other similarly-created non-consensus "standard" to demonstrate that it was processed at a similar rate to OOXML. But I've been unable to find another example of this. Even other Microsoft submissions to Ecma were done at a more typical rate. You are correct that most of the specifications I listed were hashed out in a consensus committee process.

Is that the sole reason for the difference? I wish I could point to some other similarly-created non-consensus “standard” to demonstrate that it was processed at a similar rate to OOXML. But I’ve been unable to find another example of this. Even other Microsoft submissions to Ecma were done at a more typical rate.

]]> By: Danny http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/notable-achievement.html#comment-203 Danny Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:00:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/a-notable-achievement.html#comment-203 Correct me if I'm wrong, but most if not all of the specs you list were designed by committees with representatives from multiple vendors and covering a wide range of application scenarios. On the other hand, OOXML was essentially a port of an existing data model from a binary format to XML based on the requirements of a single vendor, to cover a single application. <br /><br />It's easy to see how a big speed-up is possible if you drop the requirement for consensus between conflicting interests. Problem is you end up with with a spec that's incompatible with the rest of the world. Correct me if I’m wrong, but most if not all of the specs you list were designed by committees with representatives from multiple vendors and covering a wide range of application scenarios. On the other hand, OOXML was essentially a port of an existing data model from a binary format to XML based on the requirements of a single vendor, to cover a single application.

It’s easy to see how a big speed-up is possible if you drop the requirement for consensus between conflicting interests. Problem is you end up with with a spec that’s incompatible with the rest of the world.

]]> By: jdub http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/notable-achievement.html#comment-202 jdub Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:21:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/a-notable-achievement.html#comment-202 Hot on the heels: http://blogs.sun.com/dennisding/resource/Open%20Standard%20Definition.pdf Hot on the heels: http://blogs.sun.com/dennisding/resource/Open%20Standard%20Definition.pdf

]]> By: jdub http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/notable-achievement.html#comment-201 jdub Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:55:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/12/a-notable-achievement.html#comment-201 Given the primarily government (but some industry) demand for standards, we're probably going to have to come up with some kind of standards body performance comparison or tougher requirements for them to buy in to, so this kind of crap doesn't accelerate.<br /><br />Perhaps standards are becoming the "positive" exclusionary tactic to the "negative" tactic of patent pooling. Scary thought. Given the primarily government (but some industry) demand for standards, we’re probably going to have to come up with some kind of standards body performance comparison or tougher requirements for them to buy in to, so this kind of crap doesn’t accelerate.

Perhaps standards are becoming the “positive” exclusionary tactic to the “negative” tactic of patent pooling. Scary thought.

]]>