* Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:00:27 -0400, Linonut wrote:
>
>> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:27:43 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>> As far as you know. Uh huh. Never mind the fact that virtually every
>>> "standard" in computers includes at least some "implementaiton defined"
>>> features. Search the C and C++ standards, for instance, for what's
>>> implemenation defined. There's a lot.
>>
>> There shouldn't be anthing that's undefined in a document format, however.
>
> What part of "implementation defined" do you think means "undefined"?
A mere nitpick. So sue me.
>> If a new image format comes along, the format can be approved and added
>> to the specification.
>
> Uhh. yeah. So users have to wait until a standards body decides to add a
> new format, then they have to wait for the vendors to implement that
> formant, making it years between when the format appears and when it's
> usable in documents.
No, Erik-me-boy, the user's will do what they've always done, son.
They will wait for the vendor's to do their implementations in advance
of the standard.
I thought you were an experienced IT guy. Don't make me call you a
"toner monkey" <grin>.
> Actually, what you describe would make vendor lock-in even easier, since
> there are far fewer things defined in the standard, vendors will have to
> exten the standard to get the job done, thus lock in.
Extending a standard has nothing to do with what is already in the
standard. Microsoft has proven that, not only with "undefined" portions
of a spec (think Kerberos), but with Java etc. That's why I say that
even a good standard won't prevent Microsoft from subverting it.
--
We are not even close to finishing the basic dream of what the PC can be.
-- Bill Gates
|
|
