Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!NRI.RESTON.VA.US!vcerf From: vcerf@NRI.RESTON.VA.US Newsgroups: comp.mail.multi-media Subject: Re: the debate between Jon and Craig Message-ID: <9008240851.aa02995@NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US> Date: 24 Aug 90 12:51:23 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: inet Organization: The Internet Lines: 37 Marvin, thank you for a nicely-reasoned note about object standards. I wanted to respond to one element of your commentary: speculation about why the standards process has shifted from selecting among options from de facto "tried and true" methods to "ab initio" standards, usually developed by committees committed to standards-making. In the last 15 years, product and service providers have come to recognize the commercial value of standards. However, standardization stimulates competition. As a result, the vendor world has incentives for the following kinds of behavior: 1. avoid adopting a competitor's "standard" because it puts you on the disadvantaged side of the ledger (the competitor has already implemented it). 2. avoid agreeing to a standard until you are ready to productize based on it 3. try to assure that the standard puts all competitors at equal disadvantage. I am sure you can think of more examples. I don't mean either to be cynical nor to chastise the vendor community, since I believe these behaviors are rational in the marketplace if disappointing from a more lofty, academic perspective. But I think it helps to appreciate the shift in the way in which standards are viewed. Since there are a lot of other people participating in this discussion, I would be quite interested to hear if others disagree with the view expressed above. Since this topic is not exactly aligned with the substance of MMM-PEOPLE, perhaps these comments could be sent to me directly to avoid boring folks who would prefer to concentrate on the technical debate. Vint