Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!boris
From: boris@sftri.UUCP (B.Altman)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Standardization
Message-ID: <355@sftri.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 21:27:52 EST
Article-I.D.: sftri.355
Posted: Tue Feb 19 21:27:52 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 07:46:40 EST
References: <283@gumby.UUCP> <5125@tektronix.UUCP>, <289@gumby.UUCP> <428@nbs-amrf.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J.
Lines: 24

> > > ..... Whether you personally accept it or not, standards exist for
> > > Pascal for both the ANSI/IEEE and ISO versions.
> 
> > Sorry.  I am of the opinion that the plural of "standard" is an oxymoron,
> > unless you're referring to gas stations.  It's similar to saying "multiple
> > universes" -- there is only ONE ("Uni").  If you have more than one "standard"
> > then you have none.  To say, "This is ISO standard, that's ANSI" means that
> > neither one of them is really STANDARD.  Sure, I can write my own compiler
> > and declare it to be O. W. N. Standard, but it will STILL be rejected by
> > some other "standard" compiler.
> 
> > 	-Steve Patterson, UWMadison
> 
> Steve Patterson expresses a widely held misconception of the nature of
> standards...

I think this is a matter of definition. In my opinion, the standard does
imply uniqueness, but then I am originally from Europe. Hence, I would vote
for the definition that says if there is a standard for X then only subjects
that comply with the standard can be called X. If you want more than one "standard"
pick another word, a weaker word like "flavor".
				Boris Altman
				AT&T Bell Labs Summit NJ
				{ucbvax, ihnp4, allegra}!attunix!boris