From jthimer@iras.ucalgary.ca Thu Sep 9 15:38:11 1993 Received: from iras.ucalgary.ca by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA16529 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Fri, 10 Sep 1993 05:38:13 +0200 Received: from iras4.iras.ucalgary.ca by iras.ucalgary.ca (4.1/CS4.1) id AA07333; Thu, 9 Sep 93 21:37:11 MDT Received: by iras4.iras.ucalgary.ca (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03915; Thu, 9 Sep 93 21:38:11 MDT Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 21:38:11 MDT From: jthimer@iras.ucalgary.ca (jthimer) Message-Id: <9309100338.AA03915@iras4.iras.ucalgary.ca> To: x3j3@ncsa.uiuc.edu Subject: Varying String Module (An Editorial) Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Multiple recipients of X3J3 (permit me to editorialize), I often ponder on how unfortunate this whole issue of collateral standards has appeared to become. My encouragement and appreciation go out to those (authors and reviewers alike) who laboured on the proposed "Varying String" module that has been bandied about the last few years. I also sympathize with DIN, whose country vote (as I understand it) for DIS 1539:1991 was somewhat contingent on due WG5 consideration and pass- ing of this Varying String module at some later date (nee "political horse-trading"). Personally, I agree that the proposed Varying String model requires clarifying, concise and unambiguous, and corrected text befitting any standard being endorsed by the standardization community and released for public consumption (DIS 1539:1991 being a typical example of such a fine document :-}) This whole bureaucratic exercise has, in my opinion, perhaps given the unfortunate misrepresentation and discouragement to others similarly proposing to forward other possibly useful MODULES to the IS community at large. Submissions are not being begrudginly judged for sedicious content and held up by corporate and cultural egos ... most of us have other jobs too and do this standard's stuff as best we can, given the varied and sometimes ambiguous procedural constraints (and we're human besides). It's quite likely that not all such "tools" NEED go through the WG5 standardization meat-grinder at all. The problem of course is the wording and the expressed intent of this Varying String standard; namely, that some decade this will hope- fully become a WG5 endorsed Varying String collateral "standard" to the F90 document. (Well ok, if not, I stand corrected -- but then just what is "it" and "it's" intent?) Speaking with my "technology consumer" hat on, I suggest that such well-meaning individuals and future suppliers of useful MODULES wishing to expedite such, need simply take a lesson from the "Free Software Foundation". Present the MODULE to the world, attach your copyright and usage disclaimer, and let the IS community use and decide it for what it is (i.e. let the MODULE stand on it's own merits), and for heaven's sake, don't call it "standard" anything. Let quality, need, and time be the metric -- such are the seeds of "the day's defacto" and when the standardization bureacracy just can't cope. Cheers, -- JTH James Thomas Himer jthimer@iras.ucalgary.ca Senior Application/Project Analyst - UNIX Geoscience Apps./Imperial Oil Ltd. - Resources Div. & Dept. Physics/Astronomy - U.Calgary Ph.: (403) 237-4215 FAX: (403) 237-4215