Hmmmm

'"Vendors tend to lead and standards bodies to follow, communities tend to lead and standards bodies tend to follow," Ramji said...'

That may be what he said, but in practice what Microsoft wants is for ONE vendor to lead. Namely itself. Other vendors can go pound sand.

The general point is quite fair. In fact, one of the key things learned from a couple of decades of producing and refining IT standards is that the best way is usually not for a bunch of experts to sit down round a table and start thinking from scratch. Often the best results are attained when one or more vendors offer their viable, working software as a template for a new standard. OMG, for example, insists that all its specifications must be implemented in working software before it even considers adopting them.

But the process must be fair and open, not heavily biased in favour of one or two huge vendors.