Since my position matches that of the definition quoted by Mike Feldman,
I have no idea why you think it's not supported.  I started off saying
that a standard can be proprietary (which was my point), and Mike disagreed
and then agreed, quoting his definition.

As for your issues, it sounds like you are saying that something cannot
be a standard if it is not clear and unambiguous.  That's not the case
either ... some standards are ambiguous or unclear, as is the English

Richard Conn, Principal Investigator
Reuse Tapestry


Memo to Rick: I've read this whole thread, and I think that most of the
E-Mail supports Mike Feldman's possible. I don't know what mail you read,
but you'd have to twist it a lot to support your position. Perhaps Microsoft
has figured out a way to brainwash attendees to Tech-Ed? :-)