The Pitfalls and Perks of Adopting a New Standard 87
Monta writes to tell us that IBM DeveloperWorks has an interesting article about the pros and cons of 'adopting a standard before it becomes one'. From the article: "Whether a standard will succeed and be widely adopted is ambiguous at first, regardless of who endorses it -- a major player or a fringe element. So if most people don't like to welcome the new guy, why would they put all their eggs in a standards basket when that basket might not exist tomorrow?"
Examples (Score:5, Informative)
For one example of pitfalls and perks, consider stylesheets. Netscape threw their weight behind JSSS, Internet Explorer threw their weight behind CSS. CSS got taken up by the W3C, JSSS got chucked. Internet Explorer 3 was first with CSS support, Netscape 3 had none, and Netscape 4's CSS support was an abysmal wrapper around JSSS.
Another example is XSLT; Microsoft implemented a draft version, and ended up with support that was incompatible with the final specification and later versions of their own browser.
Of course, who was first doesn't matter in the long run. What matters is an ongoing commitment to conformance - being first with partial support means nothing if you do as Microsoft did with CSS and forget to implement the rest for years.
Re:What does it mean to be "standard"? (Score:2, Informative)
That's like comparing being a karma whore to to posting in English. Yes there's some grey area with technology standards since we do choose among new ones but it's still not the same.
Re:What does it mean to be "standard"? (Score:4, Informative)
No. Did you read the article, and understand any of it? If you did, maybe you'd understand what is meant by "standard."
A standard, in this context, is not a statistical point or distribution of points that falls on a bell curve. It is not the "average" level of quality, it's not even a measurement of quality. It is, instead, a set of criteria that is generally accepted by consensus of the community. Typically, this is to allow interoperability and product substitution capacity, and is necessary for consumer adoption of new technology.
Look at Betamax vs. VHS, for example. Would it do you any good, as a movie distributor, to create a new standard for videocassette content delivery that is better than Betamax or VHS? Because VHS is only "average"?
To take that a step further, say you are developing what you hope to be the next "standard" for in-home movie content delivery, the Laserdisc. Would it make sense for you to develop an entirely new interface between the TV and your device, when most of your potential customers already have televisions that have coaxial cable connectors?
Standard != average. Standard = used by the majority.
Re:Examples (Score:4, Informative)
"Established with clear customer demand" is not the same thing as being published as a completed specification. The OpenDocument format has already been published as a completed specification, so it's an entirely different situation to implementing an unfinished specification.
Note that the OpenOffice document format is the older, discontinued format; OpenDocument is the newer, standardised format.
Re:Examples (Score:4, Informative)
I was going to moderate this thread, but there's no 'factually incorrect' rating available, let alone 're-writing history', so I'll have to reply instead....
"For one example of pitfalls and perks, consider stylesheets. Netscape threw their weight behind JSSS, Internet Explorer threw their weight behind CSS. CSS got taken up by the W3C, JSSS got chucked."
Several corrections:
"Another example is XSLT; Microsoft implemented a draft version, and ended up with support that was incompatible with the final specification and later versions of their own browser."
To my knowledge, MS has *never* done a clean implementation of any Internet standard where they didn't absolutely have to. While their TCP/IP stack (which was based on the Berkeley implementation) may more or less work as advertised, their web browsers, email software and Internet-related developer tools have always been skewed from the relevant standards.
Micosoft does provide some object lessons in the difference between de facto standards and true standards, but I would hesitate to claim that it ever made any effort to support or adhere to any open standard.
Re:Examples (Score:4, Informative)
Well right off the bat, CSS doesn't have attributes, so you are wrong there. Do you have a cite for the "openly espoused extensions"? And how can you say that it didn't throw its weight behind CSS when it was both the first to implement it and a member of the W3C when they took it on?
What's your point? I already alluded to incomplete implementation, nowhere did I say that Internet Explorer 3's support was complete.
Wrong. CSS originated outside of the W3C. The first draft of the CSS specification was written by Håkon Wium Lie and published in 1994. The W3C wasn't even operational until the following year - although it was founded in the same month as the draft was published, it took a while to get up and running.
You are reading too much into what I am saying if you think I implied that. However, it may be true. From Cascading Style Sheets, designing for the Web, the book about CSS written by the creator of CSS, it states:
You don't recall correctly. From the above cited book:
Chucked and dropped are synonyms in this context. What distinction are you drawing?
Re:Sometimes... (Score:2, Informative)
This is true not only for standards that spend years wallowing through standards boards - someone releases an implementation, and it lights a fire under their asses to get something out the door - but also by creating de facto standards that advance the state of the art. Most of the innovations didn't come from large and wide standards bodies, but rather by a couple of people who did something that was adopted and spread. To bring up an evil example, AJAX is founded on a completely proprietary piece of COM functionality accessible via scripting in Internet Explorer. Pretty soon it became a part of the standard.
Coincidentally I wrote about this [yafla.com] yesterday.