<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
David Blue (Mailing List Addy) wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid200603110109.02990.davidslists@gmx.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Friday 10 March 2006 23:29, Kahunapule Michael Johnson wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am not a religious follower of open source and ISO standards. Actually, I
care little about ISO endorsement of any standard unless the standard is
both relevant to the task at hand and a better solution than reasonable
alternatives. This isn't a game for me... it is what I do: translate,
proclaim, publish, and live the Word of God, and help others who do those
things.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This isn't a game for most of us either. It is what we do. Now let me explain
the importance if standards, especially standards endorsed and maintained by
standards organizations such as the *International* *Standards* Organization.
And, what's more I can do it in one word, Compatibility
</pre>
</blockquote>
I'm sold on the need for compatibility already. It turns out that this
is an excellent argument for the use of a proprietary standard
published and supported by the International market leader in word
processing software. The need for standards is one of the forces that
leads towards a sort of monopoly for those standards. If a corporation
can ride that need and profit from that, it is pretty smart, isn't it?
Microsoft has done many good things! <big grin -- just don't shoot
me... I'm out of range, anyway><br>
<br>
The project wherein I produce Microsoft WordML text starts with
something that I call open and standard (USFM and Unicode). This meets
a very practical need for typesetting Scriptures in minority languages
right now. Think of the real output as bound, printed paper-- very
standard, but not electronic. The use of proprietary software in the
process doesn't bother me at all. Later, that same open standard text
can be used to produce the same sort of output using open source
software. Open standard in, open standard out, and stuff in the middle
that may or may not last long, but fills an urgent and current need is
what I am talking about. Don't get me wrong. I like open standards and
open source (as I define them), and if I could do the same thing all
"open" with no (or little) extra cost, I would.<br>
<br>
The real value of the standard is to allow interchange in both space
and time of data (or whatever), not to straight-jacket the whole
process. The Sword Process uses proprietary formats and nonstandard
extensions, but can still import and import texts that conform to
various standards. That is OK. It would not be OK to say that is not OK.<br>
<br>
Just because something is a standard does not ensure compatibility.
Take an lesson from history books-- RS-232 serial interface. Just
because two things were RS-232 doesn't mean they could communicate.
Lots of parameters had to be set (flow control method, speed, parity,
number of data bits, connector types, etc.) to communicate
successfully. Later standards, like USB and IEEE 1394 are better, in
that respect. Just plug it in. Another observation from these
standards-- they don't last forever, but there are converters to bridge
the time and technology gap. I have a device that converts from USB to
RS-232 and back that I use to keep an ancient Palm Pilot in operation,
for example. <br>
<br>
The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose
from, and so many variants. :-) Even in your example, you list more
than one wireless LAN standard.<br>
<br>
Keep smiling!<br>
<br>
Michael<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://kahunapule.org">http://kahunapule.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>