Paul Kraus <p...@kraus-haus.org> wrote:
> There have been a number of RFC's effectively written by one
> vendor in order to be able to claim "open standards compliance", the
> biggest corporate offender in this regard, but clearly not the only
> one, is Microsoft. The next time I run across one of these RFC's I'll
> make sure to forward you a copy.
>
> The only one that comes to mind immediately was the change to the
> specification of what characters were permissible in DNS records to
> include underscore "_". This was specifically to support Microsoft's
> existing naming convention. I am NOT saying that was a bad change, but
> that it was a change driven by ONE vendor.
Im Y2001, Microsoft first tried to standardize to permit chars to be 16 bit
also, in order to make their UCS-2 based system POSIX compliant. We have been
able to prevent this from happening.
A few weeks later, they tried to make ':' an illegal character in filenames
in order to make "foo:bar" an extended attribute file "bar" located in file
"foo". We have been able to prevent this too.
The people who actively work in a standard commitee decide with their majority
and if your example with Microsoft has been something that was not acceptable
by others, it did not happen.
BTW: I am not an OpenGroup member and I did never pay anything. The POSIX
standard (since 2001) nevertheless contains proposals from me and my name is
listed in the standard as contributor/reviewer......all meetings are open
(phone and IRC) and there is an open mailing list.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
