[Accessibility] Re: Q

[George Kraft]

> if the LSB were a bit more pragmatic, there'd be nothing standing in the way 
> of standardizing all sorts of useful ABIs, like Oracle's database client 
> interface or Lotus Notes' APIs on linux or ... instead we have a "zero 
> monetary cost" approach that i find somewhat incomprehensible. it's not like 
> someone has to use every single thing in the LSB, but it certainly is more 
> difficult to rely on things that aren't in the LSB should the LSB ever 
> achieve it's long term goals.

There is nothing preventing the maintainers (or evangelists) of those
ABIs from (1) stabilizing/versioning their ABIs, (2) completely
specifying their ABIs, (3) writing comformance tests for their ABIs,
then (4) presenting their bundle (implementation, specs, tests) to the
LSB for inclusion.  The LSB has given the boilerplate template.  It
couldn't be any easier to follow...

http://www.phptr.com/title/0131456954

If you want the LSB to do more, then get out your check book or
volunteer to do a lot of work.  :-)

http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/

-- 
George (gk4)