Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!iuvax!chaynes From: chaynes@sunfish.cs.indiana.edu (Chris Haynes) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Scheme standard approved Message-ID: Date: 12 Dec 90 19:01:04 GMT References: <9012101321.aa19682@mc.lcs.mit.edu> Sender: news@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Reply-To: chaynes@cs.indiana.edu Organization: Indiana University Lines: 64 In-reply-to: ted@nmsu.edu's message of 11 Dec 90 04:57:56 GMT In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: In accordance with IEEE policy, drafts of the standard will no longer be distributed by MIT and Indiana University. does this mean that the draft will no longer be available via ftp? That's what it means. IEEE holds the copywrite on the standard (and drafts of the standard). They encourage wide (cheap) distribution of drafts in order to obtain the widest possible comment during the process of standard development; hence the prior ftp distribution of drafts. However, in order to assure that all copies of standards are official copies, and to make money, they (and all other standards organizations I know of) limit distribution of standards to copies they publish, for which they charge what appear to many to be exorbitant prices. Their concern that copies be official is legitimate: a document purporting to be a standard that had been doctored could cause a lot of damage. Their need to make money is also legitimate. Money made on the sale of standards helps subsidize a formidable administrative system intended to insure, among other things, that standards are developed in a fair and open manner, that they are distributed in an uncorrupted form, and that proper liaison is maintained with other standards organizations so that we don't end up unintentionally with duplicate or conflicting standards. You may feel that standard making should be paid for in other ways so they can be distributed as widely as possible. Or you may feel that the administrative machinery should be streamlined so it isn't so expensive. You may have a point, and are welcome to take up the matter with the IEEE Standards Board. My slightly informed impression is that the IEEE runs a tighter ship than some other major standards organizations. Typically the relatively high price of standards is not a sore point. In most cases they are purchased by a small number of companies implementing products said to conform to the standard, and the cost of the standard is inconsequential compared with the cost of a corporate development effort. The Scheme community is exceptional in that there are a great many amateur Scheme implementation efforts. There is also a need for programmers to know what standard Scheme is so they can write portable programs. For other languages this problem has typically been solved by the appearance of books that spell out the standard features of the language carefully enough for most programmers (but not for professional implementors). I hope such books appear soon for Scheme. There may already be plans for revising existing books to satisfy this need. if so, isn't this a giant leap backwards for the scheme community? Not really. Before starting the Scheme standard, we obtained from the IEEE an assurance that the RnRS documents would remain in the public domain, even though the standard is based closely on a draft of R4RS. This draft of R4RS is all that most amateur Scheme developers will need, and it is still available from MIT via ftp. Hopefully the final version of R4RS will carefully specify differences between R4RS Scheme and Standard Scheme. Sorry for the length of this note, but I expect resentment of the standard's limited availability and high cost is widespread. Though both are regretable, I hope this note has made them more understandable. Chris Haynes