[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I don't agree at all. If a term has many meanings, that doesn't make
it's meaningless. To deny this, is just a way of avoiding a necessary
debate. A standard is a set of more or less strict rules that are known
by a common name by which different parties can refer to it. And I
think, you accept that every day for all practical purposes.
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> The word "standard' when it comes to software and computer technology is usually meaningless. Is something standard if it produced by a standards body but has no conformance tests (e.g. SQL)? What if it has conformance testing requirements but is owned by a single entity (e.g. Java)? What if it is just widely supported with no formal body behind it (e.g. RSS)?
>
> Whenever I hear someone say standard it's as meaningless to me as when I hear the acronym 'SOA', it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
>
|
