Arguing over Standards

Just how should one convey a standard to other people?
bq.Open source avoids monopolization differently, by abolishing ownership of core technology. In this realm, a competing implementation is called a fork. It looks more like a bug than like a feature. In the case of infrastructure that we agree not to monopolize, R0ml asks, why can’t the standard description and the standard implementation be the same thing? – “Jon Udell(An argument against standards)”:http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2006/03/13.html#a1404 But what happens when the standard just isn’t clear?
bq.I did a little cleanup on the OPML generated by FeedLounge today. The old OPML was basically the result of copying examples found in the wild, so I went through the necessary steps validating the output, reading the specs, and double-checking what I was seeing against NetNewsWire’s output. 🙂 I fixed most of the issues, but we still have one issue outstanding before the FeedLounge OPML validates. – “Alex King(Valid OPML?)”:http://www.alexking.org/blog/2006/03/04/valid-opml/ We all learn new things by reverse-engineering existing implementations. But as I was reminded during the MARC workshop I recently attended, it helps to actually understand why certain things are done certain ways. Because there are always “exceptions(How much has been invested in RSS?)”:http://scripting.wordpress.com/2006/02/22/how-much-money-has-been-invested-in-rss/#comment-1728. And sometimes those exceptions do “matter(Common Feed Errors)”:http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/03/13/Common-Feed-Errors.