The Pitfalls and Perks of Adopting a New Standard

Monta writes to tell us that IBM DeveloperWorks has an interesting article about the pros and cons of 'adopting a standard before it becomes one'. From the article: "Whether a standard will succeed and be widely adopted is ambiguous at first, regardless of who endorses it -- a major player or a fringe element. So if most people don't like to welcome the new guy, why would they put all their eggs in a standards basket when that basket might not exist tomorrow?"

Comments

Yeah...

[GillBates0]

Whether a standard will succeed and be widely adopted is ambiguous at first, regardless of who endorses it -- a major player or a fringe element

...we really need a standard way of adopting a new standard.

Re:Yeah...

[Tribbin]

There already is.

1. Wait for a good open standard to come out.
2. Embrace.
3. Extend incompatibly.
4. PROFIT!!!

Re:Yeah...

[AuMatar]

You forgot a step.

1.5) Ignore it while calling yourself "the industry standard".

Sticking to an old standard

[Anonymous Coward]

So if most people don't like to welcome the new guy

I, for one, welcome the new guy!

Re:Sticking to an old standard

[MrDrBob]

You must be new here.

Sometimes...

[Stanistani]

Getting a product to market with a new technology can advance the adoption of a standard.

Chicken, meet egg.

Of course it's a gamble...
but that's one way to make the big money.

Re:Sometimes...

[Myu]

Getting a product to market with a new technology can advance the adoption of a standard.

It is, arguably, the only way to advance it. No matter how efficient a standard is at its job, it doesn't become "Standard" until successful implementation.

Examples

[Bogtha]

For one example of pitfalls and perks, consider stylesheets. Netscape threw their weight behind JSSS, Internet Explorer threw their weight behind CSS. CSS got taken up by the W3C, JSSS got chucked. Internet Explorer 3 was first with CSS support, Netscape 3 had none, and Netscape 4's CSS support was an abysmal wrapper around JSSS.

Another example is XSLT; Microsoft implemented a draft version, and ended up with support that was incompatible with the final specification and later versions of their own browser.

Of course, who was first doesn't matter in the long run. What matters is an ongoing commitment to conformance - being first with partial support means nothing if you do as Microsoft did with CSS and forget to implement the rest for years.

Re:Examples

[Bogtha]

"Established with clear customer demand" is not the same thing as being published as a completed specification. The OpenDocument format has already been published as a completed specification, so it's an entirely different situation to implementing an unfinished specification.

Note that the OpenOffice document format is the older, discontinued format; OpenDocument is the newer, standardised format.

Re:Examples

[grcumb]

I was going to moderate this thread, but there's no 'factually incorrect' rating available, let alone 're-writing history', so I'll have to reply instead....

"For one example of pitfalls and perks, consider stylesheets. Netscape threw their weight behind JSSS, Internet Explorer threw their weight behind CSS. CSS got taken up by the W3C, JSSS got chucked."

Several corrections:

1. Microsoft did *not* throw its weight behind CSS as a standard - they openly espoused 'extending' it with proprietary attributes and behaviours. HTML 4 and CSS 1 are the first examples of MS' 'embrace and extend' lock-in tactic. To characterise this as anything other than subversion of the standardisation process is disingenuous at best.
2. IE 3's CSS implementation was so broken that people resorted to relying on its broken Cascade model (the C in CSS) in order to avoid sending any directives to it at all. Google 'dummy-rules.css' for details on this.
3. CSS did not get 'taken up' by the W3C; it was designed by the W3C. And this was not, as you imply, a result of MS' support. Believe me, CSS did not succeed because of IE, but in spite of it.
4. MSIE 3 was, IIRC, not the first popular browser to support CSS. I believe that honour goes to Opera.
5. JSSS did not get chucked so much as it got dropped. It was a pretty transparent ploy on Netscape's part to control the future of the web, and given their experience with Netscape's impositions in the past (including the <blink> abomination) nobody was willing to buy into it. While Netscape may have submitted the JSSS spec as a draft standard to the W3C, it was never officially supported. The W3C has to consider submissions from all of its members - it's a consortium, after all - but a submission should never be construed as support.

"Another example is XSLT; Microsoft implemented a draft version, and ended up with support that was incompatible with the final specification and later versions of their own browser."

To my knowledge, MS has *never* done a clean implementation of any Internet standard where they didn't absolutely have to. While their TCP/IP stack (which was based on the Berkeley implementation) may more or less work as advertised, their web browsers, email software and Internet-related developer tools have always been skewed from the relevant standards.

Micosoft does provide some object lessons in the difference between de facto standards and true standards, but I would hesitate to claim that it ever made any effort to support or adhere to any open standard.

Re:Examples

[Bogtha]

Microsoft did *not* throw its weight behind CSS as a standard - they openly espoused 'extending' it with proprietary attributes and behaviours.

Well right off the bat, CSS doesn't have attributes, so you are wrong there. Do you have a cite for the "openly espoused extensions"? And how can you say that it didn't throw its weight behind CSS when it was both the first to implement it and a member of the W3C when they took it on?

IE 3's CSS implementation was so broken that people resorted to relying on its broken Cascade model (the C in CSS) in order to avoid sending any directives to it at all.

What's your point? I already alluded to incomplete implementation, nowhere did I say that Internet Explorer 3's support was complete.

CSS did not get 'taken up' by the W3C; it was designed by the W3C.

Wrong. CSS originated outside of the W3C. The first draft of the CSS specification was written by Håkon Wium Lie and published in 1994. The W3C wasn't even operational until the following year - although it was founded in the same month as the draft was published, it took a while to get up and running.

And this was not, as you imply, a result of MS' support.

You are reading too much into what I am saying if you think I implied that. However, it may be true. From Cascading Style Sheets, designing for the Web, the book about CSS written by the creator of CSS, it states:

The workshop was also an experiment to see if it was possible for W3C to organize events outside the US. Indeed, this turned out to be possible and the workshop was a milestone in ensuring style sheets their rightful place on the Web. Among the participants was Thomas Reardon of Microsoft who pledged support for CSS in upcoming versions of Internet Explorer.

MSIE 3 was, IIRC, not the first popular browser to support CSS. I believe that honour goes to Opera.

You don't recall correctly. From the above cited book:

Had it not been for the browsers, CSS would have remained a lofty proposal of only academic interest. The first commercial browser to support CSS was Microsoft's Internet Explorer 3 which was released in August 1996.

JSSS did not get chucked so much as it got dropped.

Chucked and dropped are synonyms in this context. What distinction are you drawing?

The great thing about standards

[Tribbin]

Stolen quote: The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.

Good Quote!

[dkf]

"Great minds think alike; hurried developers make similar mistakes."

Exactly how does one...

[msauve]

"adopt a standard before it becomes one?"

Is that like going to McDonald's, ordering a Chicken Sandwich, and getting an Egg McMuffin?

Re:What does it mean to be "standard"?

[Red Flayer]

Assuming a normal distribution on the bell curve, aiming for "standard" is to aim right for the big, juicy middle of the curve. Doesn't that mean you're aiming for average overall?

No. Did you read the article, and understand any of it? If you did, maybe you'd understand what is meant by "standard."

A standard, in this context, is not a statistical point or distribution of points that falls on a bell curve. It is not the "average" level of quality, it's not even a measurement of quality. It is, instead, a set of criteria that is generally accepted by consensus of the community. Typically, this is to allow interoperability and product substitution capacity, and is necessary for consumer adoption of new technology.

Look at Betamax vs. VHS, for example. Would it do you any good, as a movie distributor, to create a new standard for videocassette content delivery that is better than Betamax or VHS? Because VHS is only "average"?

To take that a step further, say you are developing what you hope to be the next "standard" for in-home movie content delivery, the Laserdisc. Would it make sense for you to develop an entirely new interface between the TV and your device, when most of your potential customers already have televisions that have coaxial cable connectors?

Standard != average. Standard = used by the majority.

RS-232

[mark-t]

Many people adopted that "standard" long before it became EIA-232 (now TIA-232, I believe).

Adoption that makes things become standard. Not the other way around. At most, all you do is create a "recommended standard", which is interestingly what the RS stood for in that famous 25-pin bus.

Once in a while, it works

[Webmoth]

One well-adopted "standard" (which isn't a standard at all) is ID3 (and its successor, ID3V2), the standard for tagging files with metadata.

The interesting thing here is that it is as standard proposed and written in the spirit of Open Source -- its development is moderated by a core group of loosely-knit volunteers, and anyone can contribute to the discussion.

It has been adopted by practically every developer -- commercial, open source, Joe-in-Basement, etc. -- of multimedia software, even Microsoft.

No standards body (IEEE, IETF, ISO, NIST, W3C, IANA, etc.) has accepted it as a standard; to my knowledge it has never been submitted to any organization as a proposed standard.

By community involvement and acceptance, it has become a de facto standard, and for the most part everyone plays by the rules.