>"Ruby: So what we decided to do was, instead, open source it, and say,
"Here is a
>ubiquitous, in essence de facto reference implementation." It's not
anointed as a reference >implementation, but it achieves the same
purpose. It's our way of increasing the probability >that this
implementation of a standard is adopted."
>That's not standardization; that's marketing.
It doesn't claim to be anything else. Please explain: why does something
that isn't standardization and doesn't claim to be standardization give
standardization a bad name?
Michael Kay
