Talk:Technical standard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Types of standards[edit]

There should also be explained the difference between DE IURE standard and DE FACTO standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.180.130 (talkcontribs) 12:45, 26 August 2004 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution[edit]

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 09:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cost Accounting[edit]

A standard is a method of cost accounting that deals with allocating fixed costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaius (talkcontribs) 11:42, 14 November 2004 (UTC)

Standard bearers[edit]

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

Disambiguation[edit]

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

How about turning into a disambiguation page? Lochok 00:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChidoV.E.K (talkcontribs) 01:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

An article about Standards[edit]

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

The article started in 5 December 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krauss (talkcontribs) 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To do[edit]

"To Do" suggestions:

  • 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. 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

W3C and IETF are peers[edit]

"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)

"Voluntary standards" explanations[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)

Levels or Modalities?[edit]

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.194.78 (talkcontribs) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge with International standard[edit]

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

De Jure Standard[edit]

"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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.155.50 (talkcontribs) 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Terminology[edit]

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

  • Standard specification, standard test method, standard procedure, standard guide, standard definition and certified reference materials are types of standards.
  • Mandatory standard and voluntary standard are levels of enforcement
  • De facto standard and de jure standard are modalities of adoption.
  • Open standard is about availability level
  • National standard, regional standard, and international standard are geographic levels.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.194.78 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
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"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.155.50 (talkcontribs) 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No, A voluntary standard can become "de jure" mandatory when it becomes governed by law or government regulation. De jure means "by law". A voluntary standard becomes "de facto" mandatory when its usage dominates. A published standard can be either voluntary or mandatory. Rlsheehan (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Here we have a PROBLEM, (options for solution):
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.230.53 (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

About concepts (imagine set of standards indexed with your properties):

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.230.53 (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Third Opinion - Voluntary standards can very easily be "de facto", but wouldn't be "de jure" unless they are the recommended mandatory standard. "De facto" meaning the one in use by almost everyone, and "de jure" meaning the one that should be in use by everyone by law/regulation. Barry m (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
These terms are confusing and perhaps should be left out of the article. All published technical standards exist "in fact" and all are thus "de facto": very redundant!. If a published standard has the enforcement power of law, then it is "of law" or "de jure". That is what the terms mean. Let's not confuse things beyond that. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Resubmitting deleted section[edit]

Need terminology and english review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.230.53 (talkcontribs) 11:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Availability and adoption[edit]

The formulation process and formalisation levels establish different modalities of adoption:

  • De facto standard is a standard adopted "in practice". The adoption may be emerged from tradition, like the driver's seat side at a country; or from a kind of enforcement, like market enforcement. The "de facto standard" may not primarily registered as a standard, but is so dominant that everybody seems to follow it.
  • In principle standard: is the result of a formal process, usually into a standard body. As contrasted with de facto, is a standard adopted "for publishing". The existence of a published standard does not imply that it is always useful or correct for the users community.
  • Both (de facto and in principle standard). De facto standard must be submitted to a standardization process to become also a in principle standard.
    In principle standard must survive to the tests into the users community, to become also a de facto standard.

Examples: the use of GIF images (a de facto standard) on webpages in the first decades of Web was so dominant tradiction that every webdesigner use it instead the PNG format, a W3C (in principle) standard. In contrast, for format rich text and hipertexts at the Web, the lingua franca was always HTML, it is a W3C standard, and has a wide adoption, them, it is a "de facto and in principle standard".

The relation with the users community may be more complex. Levels of availability may have impact in the modalities of adoption.

Levels of availability of the standard it self (tipically the text):

  • Free, available on the internet, public library, etc. Example: W3C standards collections are free.
  • Copyrighted, available for purchase — at book store, at internet standard body's site, etc. Example: you need pay for ISO standards collections.
  • Closed, like controlled documents whith contain trade secrets or classified information.

Levels of availability of the recommended materials or recommended procedures into the standard (or cited by):

  • Open: available on a royalty-free basis. Example: W3C standards are open.
  • Restricted: by use on royalties basis. Example: IEC permit their standards to contain specifications whose implementation will require payment of patent licensing fees.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.230.53 (talkcontribs) 11:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolution of problem[edit]

The problem is clearly that the terms de jure and de facto can have different usages or meanings: The "legal" use is very different than some "street" uses. The resolution is to remove those potentially confusing terms from the article. This has been accomplished and the article seems to read very well without those terms. Rlsheehan (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"STREET"?? Social sciences are not at the street, you join to Nobel Prizes in Economic at the street?
About the resolution, YES, you was ignored the suggestion (see my ask above, "you vote for what?" at 7 February 2008), sorry, perhaps my bad english...

Final suggestion for resolution: it is OK for you exchange the term "de jure" by "in principle"? See the text at #Availability_and_adoption -- talk 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be discussing different topics. This article is about formal technical standards which are published. This should remain close to the present version. You seem to want to bring in informal standards, such as conventions about computer usage, which may be unpublished but have "de facto" industry/market acceptance. The topics are different. Let's put all that stuff in a new article about "de facto standards". Rlsheehan (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. If you have more caution with your positions (and words), I will be also... and sorry about my english, if bad english is difficult for you understand my point of view.
  2. Now you puting good points:
    1. "This article, [Standard], is also about 'informal standards'?". My position is "no" or "not yet...". Then, yes, I also think that we must put focus on published standards (!). (Resume: I agree with you, and NOT want to bring in informal standards).
    2. "Unpublished but have 'de facto' industry/market acceptance" is not a good definition for a de facto standard like PDF. It was published by Adobe for Adobe staff and for Adobe customers... but not published by ISO, W3C or another "de facto standard body". I think we need a definition at the Standard article (about what is published/unpublished for example, or "published by a org")... What you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.156.96 (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I have used that as part of the new article on de facto standards. Rlsheehan (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, good work! Let see, and back here to continue the Standard article. -- 16 February 2008 (UTC)

rename page Standard (technical) or Technical Standard?[edit]

This page has been explicitly about technical standards for at least the past 11 months. This is a well defined subject with a well defined name. Perhaps this content should be moved to a page with that name, reserving the standard page for disambiguation or a discussion of more general issue of what standards are in a society. -205.175.113.230 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. See below. Powers T 14:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pages moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

StandardTechnical standard — There's no obvious primary topic here. Evidence against this article, on technical standards, being the primary topic is that it's the 54th link on the dab page. Powers T 14:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Powers T 14:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. Standard is a very generic term that can apply to many areas. I agree there's no obvious primary topic. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly not the primary topic. It's not the article I was expecting to find, anyway. PC78 (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fix links[edit]

Now that the move is completed, the WP:FIXDABLINKS task still needs to be carried out. There are several hundred other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Standard" that now need to be reviewed and linked to the correct article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Standard(s)" versus alternate terms[edit]

A "standard" implies some form of "standardization", not necessarily adherence or compliance. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provides examples of each. Each of the IETF and W3C are industry organizations but are not comparable. Each produces very different outputs. (IETF is best known for RFCs. The acronym represents "Request For Comments".) As is demonstrated by immense differences in browsers and web pages served by the same server but to different browsers, HTML markup is not standardized. There is a published definition for it -- a specification. There are other but forms of markup, and other methods of outputting content. Calling a document a "standard" doesn't make it one. One should note that W3C does not refer to its work products as standards but to specifications. Contrast this with what NIST, who produces both "standards" and "guidelines".

For consideration: The "Cesium Time Clock" is a standard. The rate at which Cesium emits an alpha particle is a the same no matter the sample of Cesium (isotope-specific). This rate is used to calibrate time-based measurements world-wide. A scale used in commerce must be calibrated to a standardized set of weights that are traceable to comparable NIST standards. On the other hand, a guideline (e.g. FISMA, FIPS, others) reflects practices that are common to IT (regardless of industry). These practices are also referred to as "Best Practices". The good ideas seem to percolate to the top of all well-known ideas.

What is meant by 00:00 GMT is the same anywhere in the world because it is standardized. A time of "sunrise" is not (though it may refer to a light level). Volume is often used as a guidelines in household cooking rather than mass, which is a standardized unit of measure.

RTCA, Inc. publishes content used throughout the world by regulatory agencies for certifying things that fly. One of its best-known publications is entitled, "Certification Guidelines for Airborne Software in Equipment Certification”, (RTCA/ DO-178B). DO-178B is widely referred to as a "Standard" but, as the title suggests, it is not. Readers should note that no other guideline used by airworthiness authorities for certifying something as being airworthy, are comparable (except as known by other names in other countries. (Accomplishments such as RTCA documents don't arise without world-wide efforts). FAA practices (as an example) allow the software producer to use the process they believe is best (for them) as long as they are able to convince another engineer the method achieves a level of safety and reliability that is either equal to or greater, than what is afforded by the DO-178B guideline. Members of RTCA/SC-167, the committee that drafted DO-178B made a very specific point to avoid the term "standard" and to avoid using a term like "must" in order to prevent misinterpretation. ("Should" is frequently used to replace it).

Kernel.package (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliquaries in the Crusades[edit]

I had heard that during the crusades a procession of knights would sometimes bear at their front line a "standard" which was basically a pole with a crossbar resembling a crucifix from which some form of religious reliquary was suspended. Alleged pieces of the "true cross" were, if I recall correctly, the most common object to keep suspended on such a standard. Has this not been listed because there is a much more common word for it? If so, it would be great to have a link. --Þorstejnn (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant to this article, but seeStandard which has many other uses of the word. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)