home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!not-for-mail
- From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
- Subject: codifying existing practice
- Date: 26 Dec 1992 21:59:22 -0800
- Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
- Lines: 25
- Sender: sef@ftp.UU.NET
- Approved: sef@ftp.uucp (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan)
- Message-ID: <1hjgnqINNppo@ftp.UU.NET>
- References: <1hdn66INNi18@ftp.UU.NET> <1him24INNfct@ftp.UU.NET> <1hjd0sINNobl@ftp.UU.NET>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net
- X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
-
- Submitted-by: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
-
- In article <1hjd0sINNobl@ftp.UU.NET> knighten@SSD.intel.com (Bob Knighten) writes:
- >This is a commonly expressed claim ("standards should codify existing
- >practice") and it may even be true for software, but I would certainly like to
- >hear some justification. Certainly it is not true for a great many other
- >standards, such as many computer hardware standards, standards for electrical
- >fixtures and building standards, where specification of a standard often
- >preceeds the existence of any product...
-
- Perhaps a better, if more cumbersome, way of phrasing the principle would
- be "codify areas that are thoroughly understood". The most successful
- standards, even in the areas you mention, usually codify things that have
- at least been demonstrated in the laboratory, and often they codify fairly
- minor variations of existing practice. The crucial point is that we either
- know the specific formulation works, or we understand the design space in
- the neighborhood well enough that we can confidently predict it will work.
- This is emphatically not true of many of the well-meaning attempts at
- software standardization currently underway.
-
- --
- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
- -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 29, Number 100
-