Subject: IPP> Public concerns regarding the use of XML in standards efforts

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:57:01 -0500

Attached is a message just posted to the ACAP DL.  (ACAP is the
IETF WG for "Application Configuration Access Protocol", an effort
I have been monitoring for quite some time with regard to SENSE.)

This group is now considering whether to incorporate XML in ACAP,
having all the same kinds of interest/concern the IPP WG has shown.

These words are very disturbing.  Unless anyone has any objections,
I'd like to post related messages on this ACAP thread to the IPP DL
so that others don't have to monitor the ACAP DL themselves.

Please note that I am *not* against using XML; in fact, I find it
rather interesting for IPP and other protocol efforts.  I just want
to make sure we have both eyes open should we pursue XML at this
stage.

	...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   [email-masked]          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Transfer of ACAP data was Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-asid-mime-direct-06.txt (fwd)
From: "Matthew Wall" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF ACAP Discussion List" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Chris Newman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:03:51 -0500

--On Tue, Mar 10, 1998 16:16 -0800 "Chris Newman"
<[email-masked]> wrote: 

> Some people would suggest we use XML as the representation format.  It's
> not a bad format, but there's no stable spec to reference.  Someone would
> have to publish XML in an RFC first.

[other stuff snipped]

I categorically refuse to endorse any representation format or other alleged
standard that requires paid membership in a consortium to access or
reference. It's a closed standard no matter how good and no matter how many
companies endorse it. Just my 2 c, but that's why this is an IETF group,
after all. And as Chris points out, we can't legally reference this as an
ACAP practice as long as there's no referenceable RFC or equivalent public
document.

To provide some catty backfill, one of the original proponents of XML was at
our '97 ACAP meeting at the Holiday Inn in Pittsburgh. He actually provided
useful participation at the time, as those of you who were there may recall.
On this, I have no quibble. However, we were promised full access to, and
participation in, the development of the XML specification at the time with
the understanding we'd conjointly work on an XML-ACAP interop model.

After several months of fruitless private email exchanges with this person
and the designated W3C contacts, I was finally told any ACAP-interested
party would also have to be a member of the W3C consortium, period, to
participate. End of exchanges.

If it stinks like dung, I don't want to have to taste it to find out what it
really is. This one stinks of closed system thinking. I give it a big thumbs
down (or, nose-held, to continue the metaphor) for this reason.

- matt