Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Jan 2013 21:17 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 549793
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: they gave notice, thats nice
by tylerdurden on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 04:02
in reply to "RE[6]: they gave notice, thats nice"
From Microsoft's own national technology officer:
"Let's look at what an open standard means: 'open' refers to it being royalty-free, while 'standard' means a technology approved by formalised committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis. An open standard is publicly available, and developed, approved and maintained via a collaborative and consensus driven process."
Under Microsoft's own definition EAS is not open (or much of a standard really).
RE[8]: they gave notice, thats nice
by Nelson on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 04:14
in reply to "RE[7]: they gave notice, thats nice"





Member since:
2005-11-29
Which is why I asked if he considered the above standards to be examples of "open" standards. I am well aware of the difference, but I am of the opinion that the differences don't disqualify those standards from being "open".
Open doesn't mean there is zero cost associated with the use of the standard. If you're limiting open standards to only those who are royalty free, then you end up with very little standards (and in fact would be arguing that W3C standards like CSS are not open).