[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Well, I concede that my ad hoc definition is probably not the best.
However, my point was that the fact that there is more than a single
meaning for a term, doesn't mean it is meaningless or that it is
sensible to extend its meaning to just about anything. Language doesn't
work that way. You could just as well say that the word "meaning" is
itself meaningless because there has been such great disagreement about
its meaning throughout the history of philosophy.
Therefore, I think, it is more useful to think about what the features
of successful standards are in contrast to unsuccessful standards
instead of just declaring the word "standard" meaningless altogether.
Maybe there would be less disagreement about the meaning of "standard"
if we just see it as an after the fact classification of semi-formal or
formal specifications that have become the norm as opposed to others
that are the exception.
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> Nope, what you've described is a specification. Anyone can slap a document with some rules in it one the Web. Does that make it a standard? I designed a query language for XML when I was in college and you can read the description at http://www.xmldb.org/sixdml/sixdml-lang.html/. By your definition, it is a standard. To me that is worse than meaningless. It is meaninglessness masquerading as being meaningful.
>
|
