In article <ev31hf$1mgu$1@p...>, 
richard@c... says...
> Regardless of whether the GPL is appropriate for protecting a
> specification, the OP apparently wants to prevent others from
> extending his work, which is contrary to the spirit of the GPL.  While
> I sympathise with the aim of preventing the likes of Microsoft from
> "embracing and extending", doing this by restricting what ordinary
> users can do would certainly put me off using it.

Actually, I am trying to keep anyone from extending the standard OUTSIDE 
OF THE OFFICIAL STANDARDS PROCESS.

Please see http://www.opensource.org/osr-rationale on the Open software 
Initiative's web site. About a third of the way down the page you will 
find the following quote.

"Some seek to burnish the perception of their products or technologies by 
claiming that they implement "open standards" while at the same time 
adding extensions that are not part of the standard. Others go farther, 
claiming that their unique implementations are themselves "open 
standards", a reversal of standards logic. The result is that the 
(usually undefined) term "open standard" has become more of an 
aspirational term than a defining term, a problem that we seek to 
rectify."

Other documents on their site underscore the importance of ensuring that 
any standard claiming to be "open" must work to ensure that third parties 
can not extend the standard in proprietary ways. Remember, a standard is 
not software. If you add features to software then release it for others 
to use and modify then everyone still has access to the old software. But 
if some big company like MicroSoft fragments a standard by releasing non-
complying, proprietary software and force feeding that software to the 
public then they can kill the standard. 

So, "ordinary users" can always suggest and work for changes in the 
standard. Just as one can do with all the existing internet standards. 
But they will not be allowed to fragment the standard by releasing non-
conforming software or content and claiming it is yet another "version" 
of the standard. 

> A less extreme approach is to have the definition require that
> non-conformant documents not be accepted.  This is what XML does, so
> that (for example) an extension that allowed </> end tags would not be
> able to claim conformance with the XML specification.

This is exactly what I plan to do when I design my XML schema.