[Standards] whiteboarding and shared editing

Boyd Fletcher boyd.fletcher at je.jfcom.mil
Wed Aug 15 21:53:21 UTC 2007




On 8/15/07 5:20 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:

>>> Mats has had a working implementation of whiteboarding in Coccinella for
>>> years now.
>>> 
>> 
>> true but if memory serves its not SVG based.
> 
> But Mats contributed to some of the standardization work on XML
> synchronization.
> 

but as I and others have said, Whiteboarding is quite a bit more than just
modifying an XML document.


>> 
>> the market drives many of the standards today and that isn't necessarily a
>> bad thing since customers are buying the companies' products so the
>> companies have a good understanding of the wants and needs of the users.
> 
> Some people think that such "market-driven standardization" is another
> name for buying your way in.
> 

in some cases it is but it others it leads to much better standards. Take
Efficient XML. Its based on the commercial work of Agile Delta. It was
chosen (with some modifications) by the W3 because it was proven to be the
best implementation. SSL/TLS is the  same way, Netscape built a commercially
viable secure tcp/ip protocol. They proved it would work, others adopted it
and then they submitted it to the IETF for standardization.

>> However, that being said it is also good to have some independence from the
>> market. But developing standards that aren't viable for people too implement
>> doesn't do anyone any good. So we need to have a careful balance.
> 
> On what basis do you say that a generalized XML synchronization and
> editing protocol is not viable? Do you have specific criticisms of
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sxde.html or suggestions for
> improvement? Those would be appreciated.
> 

Show me a working implementation that has been proven to work with large
numbers of users. 

I haven't seen any answers to our issues regarding how to handle the
non-document aspects of whiteboarding.

>> I think it would be good for the community for Mats and Ian to document what
>> they have done so that the four implementations can be compared.
> 
> Mats and Ian have both contributed to the XML synchronization / shared
> XML editing approach in previous email threads. Whether that means they
> would upgrade their code to use that approach (or whatever approach
> results from our standardization work) is for them to say.

But why not publish there whiteboarding work? does it not use a shared XML
editing approach? 

> 
>> That is how
>> they do it in the W3
> 
> We don't know how the W3C does things since we can't afford to pay tens
> of thousands of dollars a year to participate. We prefer to follow the
> IETF example around here, if an example must be followed. At least the
> IETF functions in an open manner.
> 
> But perhaps you can share with us some of your experience contributing
> to W3C activities so that we can understand more of how they work.
> 

though I think the fee requirement for the W3 is excessive, something has to
pay for the work of the standards body. ISO charges for its standards but
the W3 gives them away. no approach is perfect. They are a lot of good
things about the IETF and W3's approach. Both use a working group approach
with a committee chair(s).



>> and they are pretty successful at publishing usable
>> standards.
> 
> It is an open question whether W3C standards are usable. Certainly REX
> was not usable (caused by their patent policy). I'm not seeing a lot of
> uptake for things like WSDL, GRDDL, XForms, XML 1.1, or XHTML 2.0 either
> (at least not in domains that people in the XMPP community care about).
> And don't even get me started on the whole WS-* stack!
> 
> Peter


Just because the XMPP community is not using XML 1.1, XForms, WSDL, and WS-*
standards doesn't mean they are not in heavy use.  WSDL and WS-* are used
extensively in governments and large commercial enterprises. And the
adoption of XForms and XML 1.1 are starting to pick up.


boyd




More information about the Standards mailing list