This is an old gripe of mine about the XML process as
conducted by this effort. It is not open. That has
troubled me from the beginning because it is an open
effort to replace an open standard, SGML, with a closed
standard, XML. It is a horrible precedent even if a successful
one.
Because as demonstrated amply by WWW projects, running code
does indeed out-colonize standards efforts, no one can deny
the need for standards bodies to work with consortiums. It
is now established practice. Still:
o Consortia are responsible to their members: companies.
o ISO is responsible to its members: countries.
IMO, ISO must be the party that insists on and ensures
openness because I do not think consortia can to the
degree which will satisfy your real and legitimate
complaint.
VRML has a consortium, but the language standard is ISO.
o Consortia and list/volunteer labor. Ensures systemic
applicability.
o ISO processes for drafting and approving authoritative
language. Ensures contractual stability.
o All drafts posted to the web at all times. Anyone can
read and anyone can contribute. Only a few people edit
and ISO makes the rules for these people, not the consortia.
Ensures openness and "a level playing field".
If people can't work inside that open a system, they should
not be empowered to draft language, chair committees, or vote.
Len Bullard