Dmitry Turin wrote:
> JR> Remember that standardization is
> JR> not an end in itself, but a means to an end.
> Excuse me, i don't understand
> "not an end in itself, but a means to an end",
> rephrase please.
>   

The goal is not to have a standard, the goal is to have compatibility or 
interoperability within some market.

Here's the starting point:

- Why can people work together better if they use the technology you 
define?

- What part of that should be implemented by a number of products that 
do not use any of your technology or software at all? Who else will 
produce an implementation of the part you propose to standardize?

- Who are the people who recognize their need to cooperate using a 
technology like yours, instead of existing standards or proprietary 
approaches, and will help you to get this accepted as a standard?


Good answers to these questions will help you know where to go with the 
proposed standard to make it happen. If there aren't good answers to 
these questions, you might have a technology that may be useful, but 
isn't really a candidate standard.

Jonathan