I reallly do not understand what the issue is.....

[Jon 'maddog' Hall]

> 
> [1] Rhetorical question.  I know why: Microsoft is taking their
> proprietary formats and dressing them up in XML and "open standards"
> clothing.  Much like a certain wolf with a certain sheep skin...
> 
When you stop and think about it, it is what they do with everything.

Microsoft defines standard as "whatever they deliver".  We used to call
them "pseudo-standards", those "standards" that are "standard" just
because a lot of people use them. But when companies like DEC had a
"pseudo standard" we treated it like a real standard.  Silly us.  We had
"DEC Standard 52" for instance, that allowed us to test all of our modem
control signals against a real written standard.  This allowed us to
then ship our systems without having to test every modem on every
operating system on every architecture on every PTT system in the world.

Real standards, which are defined, agreed upon and written.  Actually,
buy that definition even Digital's pseudo-standards were real.

Real standards are a pain in the butt.  You have to keep maintaining
your code to meet them.  You have to have upgrade paths and regression
tests.  You have to innovate inside the standards and on top of the
standards, but you are not allowed to change the standard unless
EVERYONE agrees.

Microsoft's path is so much easier.  Just brain-wash everyone to think
that whatever you do is "standard".  A much easier path.  Even Pope
Gregory would have agreed on that point.

md (who is having a really bad day)