Bringing fdo.org to the next level
CHonton at xteric.com
CHonton at xteric.com
Fri Apr 15 16:34:31 EEST 2005
Standards work is a lot like legislation (or sausage making). It is not
for the faint of heart. I see two major ways that standards (and
legislation) are adopted: de-facto and prescriptive.
De-facto standards acknowledge what already exists and is accepted.
Documenting the existing practices set expectations and allows others to
use a the current body of work as a foundation for future work. De-facto
standards often help iron out implementation differences in the corner
cases, or allow very close implementations to shift towards a compromise.
Good examples of De-facto standards include Unix.
Prescriptive standards are more like blueprints for the future. These
standards try to mandate the production of software. Depending upon the
expertise of the standard writers, prescriptive standards can be exactly
what is required/desired. My experience is that most prescriptive
standards don't balance all the elements -- usually it's too many
features. A sterling example of prescriptive standards is CORBA.
I believe fdo has a proper balance with the emphasis on de-facto
standards. fdo standards are just that: a standard way to do this or
that. Not necessarily the correct or best way.
The recent discussions of standardizing vfs and configuration have been
very productive. Some teams may (or may not) take these discussions into
the bit factory and produce components which may eventually seek
standardization -- i.e. adoption by one or more desktop environments. Our
discussions on this list given hints to the implementation teams what
features need to exist and what features need to be avoided in order for
their components to be standardized.
chas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20050415/c5f2db84/attachment.htm
More information about the xdg
mailing list