From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e276c1ed16429c03 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!94.75.214.39.MISMATCH!aioe.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada is getting more popular! Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:50:28 +0200 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: <4cc71e08$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc87d7a$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc912e1$0$23761$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <19rlit851kct1$.db26uwez2yg7$.dlg@40tude.net> <4cc94547$0$23752$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc9bf12$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <15lnc6vv8z3hc$.1oi6i03umest8$.dlg@40tude.net> <871v7aqcpq.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <13rgisoyxwkb2$.1dpflsd9zyiz5.dlg@40tude.net> <4cca091e$0$7655$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <4h6j3lfp7x5l.zqrg45o56ci3$.dlg@40tude.net> <4cca9195$0$6978$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <87hbg46mcz.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4ccc1681$0$6776$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <878w1fy3lb.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: gHYtk+mhCrTAX6LNXybaBQ.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.63 (Win32) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14979 Date: 2010-10-30T20:50:28+02:00 List-Id: Le Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:48:00 +0200, Florian Weimer a = = =C3=A9crit: >> Can we get the agreements and compromises that a standard >> embodies and then have them archived, official, permanently >> available without paper work being done in a standard place? >> Shouldn't we, at some point, follow standard procedures to >> get what a standard is expected to be? > > I've got trouble parsing this paragraph. He said a standard expected to be produced using a standard process. He = is = right, as most of them indeed are : RFC, W3C-REC (Recommendations), ISO,= = ECMA (for a restricted set of the most famous). Note : RFC are not the = ones I prefer, but are still a valuable source when there is no other el= se = (just that there is a lack of consistency in quality from from standard = to = standard with the RFC). > Anyway, I don't see value in standardization when the resulting > documents aren't freely available so that programmers have easy access= > to them. Not freely available, does not implies not accessible : the question ris= e = of what an accessible fee is (unfortunately, there is no acceptable answ= er = to this) and how else this may be accessible if possible. You may consul= t = some at the library of some universities (in many countries, you do not = = even need to be a student for that), as well as buy a paper or numeric = copy, which is the most guaranteed option. The trouble with the latter, = is = weither or not every interested party can afford this/that one. But that= = is another problem which cannot be solved at this level (otherwise, you = = are just hiding what is indeed a badly big issue). Further more, most of the most useful standards are freely available any= = way (Ada, M2T, JVM, XML, HTTP, PNG, and so many else), and this is good = = enough to provide a level of equality of rights for knowledge. > It's not clear to me why standardization needs heavyweight > processes, either. Because it needs to be heavily checked for language style (grammatical = errors, spelling mistakes, good choice of words, good style of each = sentences) and to be heavily checked for inconsistencies, ambiguities, = explicitness, exhaustivity. Otherwise, you end up in multiple =E2=80=9Cp= ersonal=E2=80=9D = versions appearing everywhere to solve weakness (none being really fine,= = obviously). How =E2=80=9Cgood=E2=80=9D do you feel when you face an uncl= ear standard text = ? (if you've already lived that) To play its role, a standard needs to be understandable and clear, and = understandable to as many people as possible. By the way, =E2=80=9Cfree=E2=80=9D, does that really exist ? (another to= pic, but not the = place for) -- = Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c=E2=80=99es= t pas pour = les chiens.