In my book, a standard isn't open if you have to pay $$ to obtain/use it.
That is, ISO standards aren't open.
@encthenet EXACTLY!
#OpenStandards require neither #licensing nor #paywall the specs.
@encthenet in fact, I'd argue that even Amazon's shitty #S3 #API is an #OpenStandard since there are multiple drop-in reimplemetations and unlike say #Oracle, #Amazon doesn't even try to ban those.
@erk @encthenet Well, whilst #ISO, #DIN, #ANSI & Co. only take existing standards and reward them with their blessing, I think they should mandate those to be truly open.
For example I'd cnsider the acceptance of #OOXML to be the biggest Mistake of ISO since not only did they already accepted #OpenDocument as superior option, but at >6.000 (!!!) pages "specification" it's practically impossible to implement OOXML by anyone but #Microsoft.
@erk @encthenet I'd also not consider it an "open standard" since it basically relies on multiple, non-#FLOSS technologies, some even #patented by #Microsoft - to be used.
In fact, the reference implementation is #MicrosoftOffice and there are no 100% feature-complete alternatives.
It only exists to undermine #OpenDocument and sabotage it's deserved market dominance.
@kkarhan @erk @encthenet MS also lobbied that vote heavily. It was not made as a technical decision at ISO.
@davidwmaxwell @erk @encthenet OFC not.
Why else would they've agreed on >6.000 pages of #bloatware within less than half the time it took for #SVG [ ~ 1.000 pages]...