[sc34wg3] CTM: The arguments for standardization

[Mason, James David (MXM)]

I'll try to hold myself down in bit count for this message. But I am =
pleased
with this new thread so far.=20

I'll say that since we went to the trouble to shoehorn XTM into 13250 in =
the
first place, we're somewhat committed to keeping it as the basis for
interchange. I'll leave it to you guys who are more technical than I am =
to
figure out whether you can make it work inside TMQL, though obviously =
I'd
like to see that. Compact syntax has got to be, as it is in 19757-2, an
add-on, not a replacement.

I think Kal's statement that XTM continuity is important to informed
consumers is something we shouldn't forget. Goldfarb always used =
backwards
compatibility a primary requirement for evaluating potential changes to =
the
approved 8879, and most of us supported him in that (that he used =
backawrds
compatiblity as a way of preventing any changes at all is another =
matter). I
get to do TM work in a Microsoft-centric (Microsoft worshipping?) =
corporate
environment largely because I can say it's an ISO standard and likely to
remain stable longer than M$'s products.

Jim Mason