Jump to content

Talk:Technical standard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 200.153.155.50 (talk) at 23:09, 10 February 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

also needed: musical standard (in jazz, pop, etc)

W3C and IETF are peers

ŗSuperscript textSubscript textSubscript textSmall Text "W3C Recommendations are ratified by IETF"? Not usually. I'd delete that bit myself, but for WP:COI . DanConnolly 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Types of standards

There should also be explained the difference between DE IURE standard and DE FACTO standard.

Dance Dance Revolution

imo this information is not important enough to be on this page. 'Standard' is the name for all kinds of difficulty levels in all kinds of things. Removed reference.Hardwick 09:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cost Accounting

A standard is a method of cost accounting that deals with allocating fixed costs.

An article on standard-bearers would be nice. -- Kizor 18:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

mess

This article is a mess. I have no idea where to begin in fixing this. Tedernst 19:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about turning into a disambiguation page? Lochok 00:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is really bad idea. Now I saw links changed from [[Standard]] to [[standardization|Standard]] But standardization is a process and a standard is an agreement or something like that. That there is stuff called Standard Oil and Standard solution does not make sense to use this as a dab page. Will Republic be a dab page because there is a Republic of Congo and a Republick of Argentina ? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standardisation is the process of finding an agreement. Doesn't that justify their being put in the same article? I don't really see what encyclopedic content there is on "standard" alone... forgive me... I haven't looked to be honest, feel free to point me in the right direction :-). Still, if there are many different types of standards, which apart from a basic principle share little in common, it would make sense for this to be a dab page (given that two or more meanings are near equal in importance). Republic really sounds different to me... you can write about what a republic is becuase all republics have heaps in common. Tough call, though. Neonumbers 00:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article on standards, in this sense, is at standardization. The fact that they are technically different is no big deal because clearly you cannot have one without the other. If you think that there is such a large conceptual difference between standards and the process of creating them that they must have separate articles, then by all means create such an article on stardards and make the links point to it. Either way there is no article on standards at standard, so it makes no sense to link there. Soo 02:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Standardisation might be the process of finding an agreement but it also includes the right to disagree. Finding an agreement implies a community of users deliberating on issues relating to their various needs and the tools available. The fact that it is only a sub group of this user community actually deals with Standardisation means implies that the community could totally turn away, turn to Proprietary Standards or build custom formats to support their needs.

An article about Standards

The "disambiguation Talk" must move to Talk:Standard (disambiguation).

The article started in 5 December 2006.

"To Do" sugestions:

  • Types of standards: build a taxonomy/typology of standards. There should also be explained the difference between:
    • "Institucionalized (DE IURE) standard" vs "DE FACTO standard".
    • "Proprietary Standards" vs "Open standards"
    • ...
  • Sources (citations and references) about standards: on organizations related to SI-standards, ISO-satndards, etc.

-- Krauss 5 December 2006.

"Voluntary standards" explanations

Original text: (Voluntary standard) users have a free choice, for use or not the standard. Examples: adoption of the DIN standards outside of German, or adoption of the W3C standards.

"Corrected" text: (...) Examples: DIN standards, ASTM, or adoption of the W3C standards.

PROBLEMS ON THE "CORRECTED": a DIN standard, when cited by German law, is a German government regulation, but not outside of German is, usually, only a voluntary standard; ASTM need the same explanations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krauss (talk • contribs) 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a DIN standard is mandatory when called for by law. But it is a voluntary standard, even in Germany. People or regulators can choose to use an ISO, CEN, ASTM International, IEEE, etc standard. It is only mandatory when somebody makes it such. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need a case law (about DIN, ASTM or another) for cite into the article... Clues for examples: government fix health law using (citing and obligating) health standard procedures, and health test methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.194.78 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levels or Modalities?

For Standard#Levels of enforcement and Standard#Levels of adoption, can we use another word instead of "Levels"? Perhaps "Modalities"?

  • Modalities of enforcement
  • Modalities of adoption

Merge with International standard

International Standard merge here, into Standard#Geographic_levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.194.78 (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De Jure Standard

"De Jure" has a well accepted meaning: "by law". Let's not try to give the term a new meaning. When an standarization group publishes a voluntary standard , it is neither "de jure" nor "de facto" in its adoption and enforcement. Only when a it is adopted by a governmental body or is referenced in a legal contract does it become "de jure". Law needs to have control of it for it to be called "de jure". Rlsheehan (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The basic term is "de facto", see google, "de facto standard" string have about 1,170,000 case of uses... and see De facto article for the basic generic (not legal acception, but in economics, sociology, etc.) meanings... "de jure" is primarialy a term for "oposite of de facto".
Example of definition: "hardware or software that is endorsed by a standards organization. Contrast with de facto standard", from pcmag. --Krauss (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some people are sloppy with their terminology. We should stay with the correct use of the term. A standard must have formal legal standing for it to be called "de jure". Rlsheehan (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another terminology options is "de facto"/"in principle" or "in practice"/"in principle"... you vote for what? (remember that "de facto standard" is the wider and "de facto" term). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.194.78 (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's remember that the limited context of this question is when a formal written voluntary standard becomes "de jure" and when it becomes "de facto". Most often a voluntary standard is neither. I think something close to the present wording is OK. This is really a relatively minor point in the standard article - let's not put an emphasis on it. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you wrong: "de facto standard" is not coupled with "voluntary standard". "De facto" is a "really used" one, and "de jure" (or "in principle") is a published one (but not necessarily used by all people). Mandatory/voluntary is independent property from "de facto"/"de jure"!

Terminology

Index of usual terms about stadard concepts defined into this article:

No, de facto and de jure are two types of mandatory standards. Many voluntary standards are neither. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you wrong: "de facto standard" is not coupled with "voluntary standard". "De facto" is a "really used" one, and "de jure" (or "in principle") is a published one (but not necessarily used by all people). Mandatory/voluntary is independent property from "de facto"/"de jure"!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technical_standard&oldid=190487107"