4 ms·

Do you have any ideas on how a standards body or its procedures could be structured to fight against this tendency?

niftich 9y ago
For the most part, they can't, because a new standards body will spin up. The history of WHATWG [1] is illuminating; WHATWG being the community -- of largely browser-makers -- behind HTML5 and other specs that moved the web forward from 2004 to now; notwithstanding how you feel about W3C or WHATWG, it's impossible to deny that once a standards-setting group no longer meets the goals of its members, those same members are likely to go start something else. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHATWG#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHATWG#History
phkahler 9y ago
One problem with standards organizations is that they have a bunch of people whose job is to make new versions of the standard. Look at the evolution of openGL, the web, C++, Unicode (love hotel? Poop emoji?) and so on. Even ASCII evolved to 8bit and the got ansi escape codes, but it's stable now. C is fairly stable now but that's because all the new stuff is in C++ (much like HTML replaced ASCII).
- hinkley 9y ago
  We’re pretty bad about frog boiling. When we amend a spec we think about how much more we added, not how big it’s gotten. It’s part of the disconnect between new and old employees. Everyone who has been there for three years learned the system one piece at a time. They don’t understand why the new people look at them like they’re crazy.
- drchickensalad 9y ago
  The emoji character set originated in Japan. When it was turned to Unicode, they weren't going to just remove characters because some of the world doesn't care for it.
- jonathankoren 9y ago
  Emoji was clearly designed for a date when the Japanese phone and telcoms decided to set union all their icons as font glyphs. Why do you need both left and right magnifying glass, and so many variations of train?
- Tobba_ 9y ago
  What's wrong with the evolution of OpenGL? Everything from OpenGL 3 and on has simply been focused on fixing the API without completely breaking old code, or exposing new GPU features. All of that was necessary.
hinkley 9y ago
Initially I was going to let the other responses stand on their own but I had a new thought. Unfortunately it seems the spec by fiat process is the least problematic this way. Someone standardizes a thing that has been working for them for a while and they want their partners and maybe competitors to work with it. It has to be a fairly conservative spec as well, something that can be defined concisely. And let me be clear: this is a necessary but insufficient quality of a good specification. Ramming an opinionated spec down everyone's throat that is clearly tilted to only be achievable with your company's patent portfolio is not playing nice, and people tend to sense the insincerity.

For the most part, they can't, because a new standards body will spin up. The history of WHATWG [1] is illuminating; WHATWG being the community -- of largely browser-makers -- behind HTML5 and other specs that moved the web forward from 2004 to now; notwithstanding how you feel about W3C or WHATWG, it's impossible to deny that once a standards-setting group no longer meets the goals of its members, those same members are likely to go start something else. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHATWG#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHATWG#History

phkahler 9y ago

One problem with standards organizations is that they have a bunch of people whose job is to make new versions of the standard. Look at the evolution of openGL, the web, C++, Unicode (love hotel? Poop emoji?) and so on. Even ASCII evolved to 8bit and the got ansi escape codes, but it's stable now. C is fairly stable now but that's because all the new stuff is in C++ (much like HTML replaced ASCII).

hinkley 9y ago
We’re pretty bad about frog boiling. When we amend a spec we think about how much more we added, not how big it’s gotten. It’s part of the disconnect between new and old employees. Everyone who has been there for three years learned the system one piece at a time. They don’t understand why the new people look at them like they’re crazy.
drchickensalad 9y ago
The emoji character set originated in Japan. When it was turned to Unicode, they weren't going to just remove characters because some of the world doesn't care for it.
jonathankoren 9y ago
Emoji was clearly designed for a date when the Japanese phone and telcoms decided to set union all their icons as font glyphs. Why do you need both left and right magnifying glass, and so many variations of train?
Tobba_ 9y ago
What's wrong with the evolution of OpenGL? Everything from OpenGL 3 and on has simply been focused on fixing the API without completely breaking old code, or exposing new GPU features. All of that was necessary.

hinkley 9y ago

Initially I was going to let the other responses stand on their own but I had a new thought. Unfortunately it seems the spec by fiat process is the least problematic this way. Someone standardizes a thing that has been working for them for a while and they want their partners and maybe competitors to work with it. It has to be a fairly conservative spec as well, something that can be defined concisely. And let me be clear: this is a necessary but insufficient quality of a good specification. Ramming an opinionated spec down everyone's throat that is clearly tilted to only be achievable with your company's patent portfolio is not playing nice, and people tend to sense the insincerity.