Richard Conn wrote:
> By the way, Mike, all of these definitions are correct.
> Saying they are not is like saying the 50+ definitions of
> "green" are not correct and we should choose one.
> ...
> [said Rick]
> >
> > I think it depends upon how you choose to use the term.
> > There are ISO and IEEE standards.  There are industry standards.
> > There are "defacto" standards.  There are organization standards.

If someone alleges that Microsoft has disregarded (for example) elements
of the C++ (formal) "standard," then to answer that Microsoft Visual C++
is itself a (defacto/proprietary) "standard" does not seem like much of
a response.  The fact that Microsoft dominates the desktop industry does
not mean that it's impossible to write portable code, but it is more
difficult without standards, and I don't mean proprietary "standards."

Speaking only for myself, when I hear of a new "standard," I expect
documentation of the standard to be available, the standard itself to be
supported and implemented by more than one organization, but not owned
by any one of them.  Visual Basic or Java are not standards in this
sense, since they are intellectual property of their respective
corporations.  Windows, for example, is whatever Microsoft says it is,
and they keep changing their story.

William R. Greene                              1100 Perimeter Park Drive
NetIQ, formerly Ganymede Software                              Suite 104                       Morrisville, NC  27560 USA
Phone: (919) 469-0997, ext. 280                      Fax: (919) 469-5553