![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Technical standard be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
There should also be explained the difference between DE IURE standard and DE FACTO standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.180.130 ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 26 August 2004 (UTC)
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)
A standard is a method of cost accounting that deals with allocating fixed costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaius ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 14 November 2004 (UTC)
An article on standard-bearers would be nice. -- Kizor 18:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article is a mess. I have no idea where to begin in fixing this. Tedernst 19:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The "disambiguation Talk" must move to Talk:Standard (disambiguation).
The article started in 5 December 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krauss ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"To Do" suggestions:
-- Krauss 5 December 2006. 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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)
For Standard#Levels of enforcement and Standard#Levels of adoption, can we use another word instead of "Levels"? Perhaps "Modalities"?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.194.78 ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
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" 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)
Index of usual terms about stadard concepts defined into this article:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.194.78 ( talk) 18:19, 6 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)
Need terminology and english review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.230.53 ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The formulation process and formalisation levels establish different modalities of adoption:
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):
Levels of availability of the recommended materials or recommended procedures into the standard (or cited by):
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.230.53 ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Pages moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Standard → Technical 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)
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)
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)
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)
Khi kgkt kfxju 2A01:5EC0:1803:D750:1:0:C61B:5B27 ( talk) 07:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Technical standard be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
There should also be explained the difference between DE IURE standard and DE FACTO standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.180.130 ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 26 August 2004 (UTC)
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)
A standard is a method of cost accounting that deals with allocating fixed costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaius ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 14 November 2004 (UTC)
An article on standard-bearers would be nice. -- Kizor 18:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article is a mess. I have no idea where to begin in fixing this. Tedernst 19:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The "disambiguation Talk" must move to Talk:Standard (disambiguation).
The article started in 5 December 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krauss ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"To Do" suggestions:
-- Krauss 5 December 2006. 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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)
For Standard#Levels of enforcement and Standard#Levels of adoption, can we use another word instead of "Levels"? Perhaps "Modalities"?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.194.78 ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
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" 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)
Index of usual terms about stadard concepts defined into this article:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.194.78 ( talk) 18:19, 6 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)
Need terminology and english review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.230.53 ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The formulation process and formalisation levels establish different modalities of adoption:
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):
Levels of availability of the recommended materials or recommended procedures into the standard (or cited by):
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.230.53 ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Pages moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Standard → Technical 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)
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)
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)
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)
Khi kgkt kfxju 2A01:5EC0:1803:D750:1:0:C61B:5B27 ( talk) 07:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)