Microsoft Fires Back at EU
,----[ Quote ]
| Mr. Smith noted that Microsoft has submitted revised technical
| documents running about 8,000 pages, with documentation supporting
| its pricing calculations totaling about 1,500 pages (see Microsoft
| Meets EU Deadline).
| "We hope to get feedback about the technical documentation and that
| it will take a constructive form," he said. "We have spent a great
| deal of time and money on compliance. We believe we've been fair
| and reasonable in setting the proposed protocol prices."
And the hilarity continues. They extend deadlines, they are pushing
boundaries, and then delivering 'encyclopaedia' of drivel, hoping to slow
down the process. This isn't the first time (see below, with highlights).
This only justifies their new URL: http://thesource.ofallevil.com
How to Write a Standard (If you Must)
,----[ Quote ]
| If possible choose an implementation that has layers of complexity
| from years of undisciplined agglomeration of features. Of course
| this will lead to a specification of Byzantine complexity and
| epic length. But since no one will actually read the
| specification, there is no harm. In fact the length and
| complexity can bring several benefits: 1. Any criticism of the
| specification can automatically be dismissed as nitpicking. For
| example, if you are presented with a list of 500 faults in a
| 6,000 pages specification, you can respond, "That is less than
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 10%. You are just nitpicking. We can fix that in release 1.1".
| ... 2. Further, since review periods at ISO and most other
| standards bodies are of fixed length, regardless of the length
| of the specification, a sufficiently large specification will
| ensure that it receives no, or only cursory review.