Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Meaning of the word "standard", was Re: Since when has ASCII ... Date: 12 May 1999 22:31:37 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 100 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6u3e12m3me.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3736FC51.92BDACBD@virgin.net> <926424127.13341.1.nnrp-01.9e98250c@news.demon.co.uk> <7h9d2g$20o$1@spodzone.pigsty.org> <7haahp$lvl$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <7hc31k$5mj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 gnohmon8715@my-dejanews.com writes: > > In article <7haahp$lvl$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, > "Rob Nicholson" wrote: > > > Where is MS Word and/or its format ratified as an "industry standard"? > > > > As Word is used on the majority of PC's and other word processors can > > probably import/export Word 7.0 format, it's become a defacto-standard. > > Standard? Where, then, is the format documented, Inside Microsoft (one assumes that). Or perhaps they simply RTFS/. Oh what, you do not have it? Well it is RTFB then, you know :-). > and by which standards > organization? Is it an ANSI standard? An ISO standard? No need for an organisation for something to be an standard. > Do you know what the word "standard" means? The consise Oxford dictionary says: standard n, 1. ... 2. weight or measure to which others confirm, ... ; thing serving as basis of comparison; document specifying ... agreed properties ... As you see no need for an organisation to issue it, and "document" is only in 3rd of the definitions (the omitted are totally off for this discussion). > Or is "defecation-standard" (I've corrected your spelling, since "defacto" is > not a word) some marketroidspeak phrase A de facto standard (note the space I have added) is a standard set by the "fact" of something becomming widely spread. The usage* of TCP/IP in preference of other systems is a de facto standard. * Note: only the usage, the actual protocol is de jure standardised. Oposed to this is a de jure standard, one handed down by the "jurors", that is some official body. > that you just read in this week's > issue of _pointyhair cretins weekly_? I have seen the term de facto at least ten years ago (to describe the PC hardware standard**). And I doubt that it was new then. ** and yes it is documented, as an side wffect of the EISA initiative. IEEE IIRC. And no, I do not have the number. > Have you any idea how idiotic you sound And have you got any idea how idiotic you sound. Before making dictionary flames you should first read the dictionary. > and how irritating and infuriating > and irksome it is to hear idiots like you spout words you don't > understandard? It is sure irksome to hear people say things ones ignorance regards as wrong. > The word "standard" is not the same as the "Word standard". Sorry [not] to burst your bubble. But Word is on an majority of computers these days. Pestillence travels far and wide. But that makes it an de facto standard. > The socalled "Word standard" is a bastard standard that does not stand as a > recognized standard. Recognized by who? You? The ruler of the world? The majority of computer users? > Wave your redmond banner all you want, but don't try to > run it up a standard flagpole. No need to run it up, it is already up there. At the moment I an trying to find an knife strong enough to cut the rope that keeps it up there. Neil "100% Microsoft free and enjoying it" Franklin -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ 20th century record companies fit the 21st century data highways as good as 19th century stagecoaches fit the 20th century freeways ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: alderson@netcom2.netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III) Subject: Re: Meaning of the word "standard", was Re: Since when has ASCII ... In-Reply-To: Neil Franklin's message of 12 May 1999 22:31:37 +0200 Message-ID: Sender: alderson@netcom2.netcom.com Reply-To: alderson@netcom.com Organization: NETCOM On-line services References: <3736FC51.92BDACBD@virgin.net> <926424127.13341.1.nnrp-01.9e98250c@news.demon.co.uk> <7h9d2g$20o$1@spodzone.pigsty.org> <7haahp$lvl$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <7hc31k$5mj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <6u3e12m3me.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 00:09:05 GMT Lines: 49 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ix.netcom.com!netcom2!alderson In article <6u3e12m3me.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Neil Franklin writes: >A de facto standard (note the space I have added) is a standard set by the >"fact" of something becomming widely spread. The usage* of TCP/IP in >preference of other systems is a de facto standard. >* Note: only the usage, the actual protocol is de jure standardised. >Oposed to this is a de jure standard, one handed down by the "jurors", that is >some official body. [ snip ] >I have seen the term de facto at least ten years ago (to describe the PC >hardware standard**). And I doubt that it was new then. _de facto_, according to my _Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary_: 1. In fact; in reality: _Although his title was prime minister, he was de facto president of his country. Although the schools were open to all qualified registrants, the city still practiced de facto segregation._ 2. actually existing, esp. when without lawful authority (distinguished from _de jure_). [ < L.: lit., from the fact ] _de jure_, according to the same source: by right; according to law (distinguished from _de facto_). [ < L. ] The Latin word _jure_ is the ablative singular of _jus, juris_ "law", and _de_ in this context means "according to". There is an exchange between lawyers in Heinlein's _Stranger in a Strange Land_ in which one claims to be the guardian of the title character, "not only _de facto_ but _de jure_ as well", that is to say, not just because he has the poor sod locked up but because the law says he's allowed to. (Copyright 1961, so it's older than some of the people arguing against the existence of _de facto_ standards.) Both are *old* legal terminology, in use in *Roman* legal codes. Think I'll use my humanities.classics/sci.lang sig here. -- Rich Alderson You know the sort of thing that you can find in any dictionary of a strange language, and which so excites the amateur philo- logists, itching to derive one tongue from another that they know better: a word that is nearly the same in form and meaning as the corresponding word in English, or Latin, or Hebrew, or what not. --J. R. R. Tolkien, alderson@netcom.com _The Notion Club Papers_ ###### From: john@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (John "West" McKenna) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Meaning of the word "standard", was Re: Since when has ASCII ... Date: 13 May 1999 11:17:53 +0800 Organization: The University of Western Australia Lines: 12 Message-ID: <7hdg91$d1t$1@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <3736FC51.92BDACBD@virgin.net> <926424127.13341.1.nnrp-01.9e98250c@news.demon.co.uk> <7h9d2g$20o$1@spodzone.pigsty.org> <7haahp$lvl$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <7hc31k$5mj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <6u3e12m3me.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #118 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news.uwa.edu.au!not-for-mail [de facto/de jure standards] People seem to be ignoring the article that started all of this, which claimed that Word files are an "industry standard". My interpretation of this is a standard across the whole (or at least a significant part) of the industry in question (the computer industry in this case). Word clearly fails this test. In any case, rampant incompatibilities between different versions make claims of it being any kind of standard somewhat questionable. John West ###### From: michael.wojcik@merant.com (Michael Wojcik) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Meaning of the word "standard", was Re: Since when has ASCII ... Date: 13 May 1999 17:46:47 GMT Organization: MERANT Inc. Lines: 47 Message-ID: <7hf367$1r9g@news2.newsguy.com> References: <3736FC51.92BDACBD@virgin.net> <926424127.13341.1.nnrp-01.9e98250c@news.demon.co.uk> <7h9d2g$20o$1@spodzone.pigsty.org> <7haahp$lvl$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <7hc31k$5mj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <6u3e12m3me.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-055.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: xrn 9.00 Originator: mww@raederle.microfocus.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!pln-e!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!michael.wojcik In article <6u3e12m3me.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin writes: > gnohmon8715@my-dejanews.com writes: > > The word "standard" is not the same as the "Word standard". > Sorry [not] to burst your bubble. But Word is on an majority of > computers these days. Pestillence travels far and wide. But that makes > it an de facto standard. No, that does not make it "an [sic] de facto standard". "de facto" marks a declaration as subjective and (the author claims) consensual; it's used precisely to indicate that despite the lack of official mandate, it is generally recognized that the following is true. The only thing that makes a statement de facto true is agreement between the writer and audience. "de facto" does not mean "this is a fact independent of the observer" (except perhaps literally). It means "allowing a degree of imprecision, we can say that for practical purposes this is a valid statement". (I'm speaking of the rhetorical use of "de facto", of course, not legal use, where it may be a term of art.) Feel free to claim that Word is a standard, de facto or otherwise. Don't bother claiming that some positive, objective quality makes it so, and call it de facto in the same breath; that's contradictory. If everyone in the world used Word, we might all agree that it was a de facto standard; but it would be our agreement that made it so, not the presence of Word. If we all agreed that Multimate was a de facto standard, it would be. We hope, of course, that for any topic of general interest, there are enough sane participants that declarations "de facto" make sense, but this is not guaranteed. And since there is clearly some dissention among informed parties on this matter, we can say that calling Word a de facto standard is fairly subject to challenge. Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@merant.com AAI Development, MERANT (block capitals are a company mandate) Department of English, Miami University What is it with this warm, quiet, nauseating bond between them? -- Rumiko Takahashi, _Maison Ikkoku_, trans. Mari Morimoto, adapt. Gerard Jones ###### Sender: marc@dumbcat.snafu.org Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Meaning of the word "standard", was Re: Since when has ASCII ... References: <3736FC51.92BDACBD@virgin.net> <926424127.13341.1.nnrp-01.9e98250c@news.demon.co.uk> <7h9d2g$20o$1@spodzone.pigsty.org> <7haahp$lvl$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <7hc31k$5mj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <6u3e12m3me.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <7hf367$1r9g@news2.newsguy.com> From: Marco S Hyman Date: 13 May 1999 19:47:57 -0700 Message-ID: Organization: S.N.A.F.U. (www.snafu.org) X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Lines: 22 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.94.187.130 X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 926650079 210 marc@204.94.187.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news2.best.com!news3.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail michael.wojcik@merant.com (Michael Wojcik) writes: > The only thing that makes a statement de facto true is agreement > between the writer and audience. "de facto" does not mean "this > is a fact independent of the observer" (except perhaps literally). > It means "allowing a degree of imprecision, we can say that for > practical purposes this is a valid statement". (I'm speaking of > the rhetorical use of "de facto", of course, not legal use, where > it may be a term of art.) From Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: De facto. In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.... > Feel free to claim that Word is a standard, de facto or otherwise. Well, Word is pretty illegitimate :-) // marc (who doesn't think it is a standard, either)