This sounds alot like what happen to the Xbase standards. Each company wanted to control the standard until they could agree on what the standard was and it died. People have such a different opinion now of the Xbase language as it is only good for legacy systems. I was all for the Xbase standards so the schools would start teaching it. Now it is becomming harder and harder to find good training for VFP which is the only real player left.

>>>Sun is doing it best to retard the development of a Java standard
>>
>>Why would they do that? What are they doing, or not doing?
>
>Evan, I'm sure that I'm overstating the case but they are not helping much.
>
>(Note I made my post before I read this article.)
>
>From Infoweek, Nov. 29, p. 10:
>
>Sun Microsystem's food-dragging on the standardization of Java will come to a head Dec. 16, when a general assembly of the European Computer Manufacturer's Association (ECMA) meets to discuss Sun's concerns over intellectual property rights, a sticking point that could derail the process.
>
>For coporate developers and ISV's, the cloak and dagger politicking is causing some trepidation and confusion over how and whether Java's standardization should take shape. At the heart of the matter is whether Java can continue to grow in Sun's long shadow or whether Sun should relinquish control of the technology for it to truly become an open standard.
>
>Sun recently removed its Java specification from consideration by ECMA, which may have adopted Java as a standard, because of concerns about ECMA's rules, or lack thereof, regarding copyright laws.
>
>[Summary: Some think Java is developing faster under Sun's control but others want a standard. Sun wants to remain control while including others input.]
>
>Anonymous developer:
>
>"There are a lot of companies bigger than Sun that are putting a tremendous amount of faith in the fact that Java is going to become a standard. These companies have bet the farm on Java, and they aren't going to let Sun screw that up."
>
>
>
>[me again]
>
>Companies trust the C language because the specifications are not controlled by any one company. I'm betting that few large companies will commit to widespread use of a language that is not standardized, particularly if they compete with MS.
>
>Peter