Quoting "Dr R. Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]>:
> W3C and IETF were vaguely interested in CQL [*], but not the higher
The IETF today is not the power that IETF of days long gone was... IETF has
(still) DASL and a host of no so unrelated standardization things going..
The W3C is a pay-for-club ruled and directed by deep pocket corporate
greed worried about missing the train of the "next big thing".
Since SRU can potentially pose a threat to some dominant players in the
market should it be tossed into the den of the W3c it would go the path
of most of their standards into needless complexity, patents, arogance
(with over a decade of f-cking with XML, Web and hypermedia they still
are miles behind the state of design that already existed with HyTime by
the turn of the 1980s into the 1990 and published as ISO standard in 1992)
and ruin. If anyone thinks that Z39.50 contained everyone's kitchen sink..
just think about what would happen under the wings of .... if anyone even
cared (and not bury it like much of the standards swoooshed around at the W3c).
Since its Web like XML standards.. and that's what OASIS is for.. and
they are much nicer to deal with.....
> level protocol(s) that (could) use it. These two organisations tend to
> be a bit lower level, whereas OASIS works with the level of standard one
> up, where we think that SRU fits in more naturally. For example, OASIS
> has the Open Document Format and WS-BPEL which build on the sorts of
> lower level standard defined by W3C.
> * To my understanding. I had some conversation about CQL with the IETF
> folks, but Ray (?) dealt with W3C folks more than I.