On 20040113T193114+0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > How do you define "standard"? The meaning I had in mind is roughly this: A standard is a document specifying a particular protocol (or other similar thing) with sufficient detail, produced by implementors of that protocol in cooperation and endorsed by a neutral body recognized by the community of users and implementors. A protocol is standard if there is a standard for it. > Here's a common definition (wordnet): > > 2: commonly used or supplied; "standard procedure"; "standard > car equipment" I'm sure you knew I did not mean that. > If you mean "endorsed by the IETF cabal", then no - but why are you > listening to them? You could equally put "IEEE", "ISO", or "Microsoft" > in there and it would be about as meaningful. IETF is the most relevant standardization organization in this context. ISO is somewhat relevant. Microsoft is an implementor, not a neutral body, so it does not qualify. Now, you could have said what you had to say in two lines. The rest is just you venting your frustration; please take that elsewhere. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer http://www.iki.fi/gaia/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature