@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:@reiver@mastodon.social: 4/ An example of №3 is ERC-223. ERC-223 was meant as a replacement for ERC-20. A single person invented ERC-223 without involving all the people who implemented or were using ERC-20. ERC-223 was largely ignored.

Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

Reply to @reiver@mastodon.social
@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:@reiver@mastodon.social (2026-05-02 00:15:20)
3/

An example of №2 is the (now old) DVD format.

Prior to DVD, there were incompatible but similar technologies, such as: MMCD, and SD.

The same individuals who were behind MMCD, and SD (incompatible formats) got together (in a working-group) and agreed to interoperate.

DVD was the result of that.

And, the DVD specification(s) documented their agreements on how to interoperate.

...
---Reply---
@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:@reiver@mastodon.social (2026-05-02 00:32:56)
4/

An example of №3 is ERC-223.

ERC-223 was meant as a replacement for ERC-20. A single person invented ERC-223 without involving all the people who implemented or were using ERC-20.

ERC-223 was largely ignored.


---Replies---

@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:@reiver@mastodon.social (2026-05-02 00:38:05)
5/

People are of course able to decide for themselves which of №1, №2, and №3 they feel are acceptable scenarios for publishing specifications under organizational bodies (e.g., IETF) and community groups (e.g., FEP), but —

But, I feel only №1 and №2 are acceptable scenarios.

I.e., I feel that specifications published under organizational bodies (e.g., IETF) and community groups (e.g., FEP), should be DOCUMENTING not inventing.

...