mstdn.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A general-purpose Mastodon server with a 500 character limit. All languages are welcome.

Administered by:

Server stats:

17K
active users

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 in fact, I'd argue that even Amazon's shitty is an since there are multiple drop-in reimplemetations and unlike say , doesn't even try to ban those.

Cuz |s and |s are critical.

@kkarhan

I'd have to look/think closer to make a decision on that. I *GUESS* S3 (HTTP) is fully documented and it is free to access/read, so at first glance is an #OpenStandard.

@encthenet Case in point, only & solutions survive, and those must inherently be & ...

The few exceptions are either old legacy shit and/or have only worse-licensed competitiors.

@kkarhan @encthenet This misses the whole point of why we have companies like ISO. Their job as the standard organization is to make a fair forum for discussion of the standard. Else it can very easily end up being more biased towards some specific cases than it would have been otherwise. "Amazon's shitty #S3 #API" is only put into the world to serve the needs of Amazon, they don't need to care for how anyone else wants it to be which is the thing that Standard.

That said I still think they should be free of charge. @twitter@jonsneyers one of the JPEG XL authors would also agree with that, and they are actually trying to make a difference in that space. https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/31/iso_paywall_battle/
akko.chir.rsAkkoma

@erk @encthenet Well, whilst , , & 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 to be the biggest Mistake of ISO since not only did they already accepted as superior option, but at >6.000 (!!!) pages "specification" it's practically impossible to implement OOXML by anyone but .

@kkarhan @encthenet
That one is a bit of an outlier, so much in fact that there is a whole Wikipedia about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML

But the standard of OOXML is actually free to access through ECMA-376, but even then I would not consider it a very open standard because of the process of which it was created.

https://www.ecma-international.org/publications-and-standards/standards/ecma-376/
en.wikipedia.orgStandardization of Office Open XML - Wikipedia

@erk @encthenet I'd also not consider it an "open standard" since it basically relies on multiple, non- technologies, some even by - to be used.

In fact, the reference implementation is and there are no 100% feature-complete alternatives.

It only exists to undermine 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 within less than half the time it took for [ ~ 1.000 pages]...

@erk

@kkarhan

Except that there are other forums that produce standards that are open/free. I've participated in an OASIS standard. In checking to see if ecma made all their standards free, I came across this:
nist.gov/standardsgov/standard

Quite a few orgs making their standards free (though a number of the ones on that list have limitations).

NISTStandards Organizations that Offer Free Access to Their StandardsThe majority of standards developing organizations depend on the revenue from the sale of standards t

@erk

@kkarhan

Also, requiring people/companies to pay doubly ensures that not everyone's voice is heard. It's already time consuming enough, but having to pay thousands of dollars for the honor of spending your free time to try to fight against corporations isn't something most OSS people want to do.

There's a reason most RFCs are corporate sponsored.

@encthenet @kkarhan I am not sure where the disagreement is because I fully agree with you. Standards should be free to access. The question should then be what does ISO bring to the table that these other organizations does not and why does people/companies choose them over the ones that have free to access standards.

Also companies would probably also want standards that are free to access and it is probably those that need to lobby ISO and the national bodies into making the changes that are needed.

For example Adobe, Apryse and Foxit are sponsoring access to the PDF standard https://pdfa.org/sponsored-standards/

I hope that examples like this is only the start and that we will see ISO to rework how it works in the coming years.
pdfa.orgSponsored ISO standards for PDF technology – PDF Association
@erk @kkarhan @encthenet while s3 is bad, at least Amazon isn't intentionally breaking support with 3rd party providers like minio is

@charlotte @erk @encthenet EXACTLY!

has a vested interest to act a bit more longterm.
Unlike 's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace% ] they want to become the de-facto standard, as they already dominate and making shit easier on their platform will only work if it isn't exclusive.

Even if that means Microsoft ( ), , and even can do the same...

It also fixes a lot of issues has...

en.wikipedia.orgEmbrace, extend, and extinguish - Wikipedia