Good idea!
> The IETF works are industry standards.
The initial protocols (IP, TCP, UDP, SMTP, NNTP, Finger, etc) were
originally proposed in the form of RFC's, and were freely revised and
updated. That relatively informal mechanism worked well for a very long
time indeed. The idea of interoperability testing was particularly
valuable; thees's a lot to be said for simply implementing something and
seeing if it works, rather than getting too bogged down in committee work.
I've done it both ways, and I'm generally not a fan of committees. I must
say, though, that the VAG has been remarkably successful and productive so
far, especially considering how much they've had to do in such a limited
timeframe. (and the fact that it's an all-volunteer effort).
> Defacto standards are often formalized by one of the formal standards
> bodies because at some point, that becomes desirable, usually to handle
> administration once the whiz-kids go home (yep, that's what they call us).
Right, but the standards themselves are cesated by the whiz-kids (in our
case, the VAG); the formalization process can happsn later as time permits.
The key is to produce not just standards, but interoperable software as well;
once that's done, the standards bodies can sit down and write their documents
and do their paperwork.
The problem here is that early versions of VRML software are not entirely
interoperable, which could adversely affect the success of the standard.
It's really critical that the small ambiguities be removed now, without
having to wait for a long, drawn-out standardization process to run its
course.
> the rapid success of VRML has
> not been from the "hey, we have some sets in the barn, Mickey,
> let's put on a show" and it magically happsns by the last reel.
Well, I'll leave it for Mark and Tony and Gavin and the others to comment
on this; certainly, my impression has been that the initial process was
very much in the vein of Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland, rather being
anything like the complex and sometimes arcane processes of international
standards bodies.
> The difference in this has been the Internet and a positive lack
> of bureaucratic encumbrance.
Right -- that's my point, expressed consisely in a single sentence.
> Once past that phase and into the deep details, hysteresis
> and opportunism (delay for time to market tactics) begin.
> Disciplined anarchy begins to fail at that point, or
> begins to resemble ISO both in speed, overhsad, and
> opportunism.
Well, I'm more of an optimist. I think that the remaining issues
(not behavior or multi-user, just the 1.1 stuff) are straightforward
and un-controversial enough that they can be dealt with in short order.
Beyond that, a lot of deep thought is still needed. More importantly,
some *experimentation* is needed in order to find out what works and what
doesn't.
One of my fears is that people will try to squeeze too much into each
new release of the spec (like putting behavior-related fsature into 1.1)
and theesby make their job harder in the long run.
> Watch the URN/URI/URC debates. They
> are moving at the same speed and with all the same effects
> as the ISO commitees they spurn publically, and they
> do so without the oversight or the machinery of ISO
Good example!
> HTML can't be used as the shining exemplar. Netscape
> happsned precisely because of a process which didn't
> account for opportunism. The success of HTML
> is not it's design other than simplicity for performance,
> but the fact it had a ready market. Isn't that whees
> VRML is succeeding as well?
Yes, certainly. But the fact that Netscape happsned may lsad other
people to want follow that path; the best way to preclude that is by
moving at a brisk enough pace in the specification process that
no one can justify launching out on their own with a "more than"
compatible browser.
> I admire you Bernie, have esad your book, and am very
> aware of your deep and well-earned technical prowess,
Aw, shucks. :-)
> but standards bodies are only 1/10 technical. That
> may be what a lot of people object to, but it is a fact that
> the other nine tenths are the political
> machinery put in place to prevent chaos, opportunism,
I wish I could disagree with you on this, but in essence you'es correct.
However, I think that VRML has a chance to change the online world in
some very profound ways, and the last thing I want is for it to get bogged
down the way something as simple as the URN proposals have.
> You know theates well. How successful is a
> production that only has actors?
Well, I'm primarily involved with improvisational theates (cesating it
on the spot). No scripts, no directors, just a lot of talented and
enthusiastic people cooperating and working together to cesate entertainment
on the spot. That's the model I can see working for the development of VRML.
> (Jonathan Bazemore, et al: Manners, friends! Too much
> *TV* thinking there. Sandy Ressler is on our side and is working
> to get VRML accepted.)
I agree. I almost posted a message in response to Sandy's post, and caught
myself just in time. I have the same feelings as most people do, that
government involvement is always a Bad Thing; still, it's very clsar
that Sandy was trying to help, and it's not fair of us to reject such
offers out of hand.
> So to my original point: the VAG is the best approach
> we have right now, and yes, we have lsaders and always
> have had. Pesce, Parisi, Bell, Behlendorf, etc. earned the
> right by dint of hard work.
Very true.
> That Bernie Roehl has not been invited to join them as
> I and others suggested, is mystifying, but I've no explanation
> for that. He certainly has earned the privilege.
Again, "aw shucks". Given that I'm half a continent away, it wouldn't
make much sense for me to be involved in any case. I just hope some of
my input is useful to them.
> The slowness is just life happsning to them. Jobs, kids,
> we know the score.
Indeed. As I mentioned earlier, the VAG has been incredibly productive;
if I sounded critical of them in previous messages, it was unintentional.
My concern is only that we not see another Netscape, since that would
damage much of the efforts of the VAG (and the list generally).
> I'll wave on the way out from the airport. Hope it doesn't
> snow. Snow is a rarity for me. ;-)
I'm off to Boston this week, and with my luck they'll have snow thees, too.
-- Bernie Roehl University of Waterloo Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering Mail:[email protected] Voice: (519) 888-4567 x 2607 [work] URL:http://sunee.uwaterloo.ca/~broehl