Talk:Standardization

message: I haven't been able to find a clear definition of what a standard is, but ISO certainly produces standards. On the other hand, W3C only produces recommendations, which may be submitted to standards bodies. W3C never claims to produce standards! The reason may be that W3C is a consortium - but I guess you need a lawyer to tell the difference. Yaronf 22:54 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
:(Better late than never?) Since this article is linked from ones such as Internet Explorer, I have gone ahead and added a paragraph to clarify that the standards that govern the Internet tend to be de facto, and that the W3C and IETF, among others, intentionally call their publications by names other than "standard" so as not to conflict with ISO, IEC, etc. - mjb 03:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate page on standard (technical) has been added to clarify this. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WOW 

message: My perception is that there are some subtle differences between the british notion of standardization and the american english notion of standardisation. The first one appears to me dealing with compliance, the latter one dealing with conformance. This maybe of interest to the community of lawyers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsten.hatger (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  standardisation vs standardization 

message: To me, standards are just an attempt to organize things. Maybe I'm using the wrong word, but ultimelly I've always seem standardization as a way to set rules for better organizing anything by grouping into categories and trying to make it clear and common.
For example cable standards (RCA, etc), TV standards (Pal-M, NTSC), internet standards (HTTP) all fit in that description.
Anyway, maybe I'm thinking in one concept and using the wrong word, but I still couldn't find a better (english) word for it. Also haven't looked too deep yet... :P
I'm quite surprised to see some articles in wikipedia where it goes way too technical in one field instead of the generic aspect view of it. I'd say this is one.
--Cacumer 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  standards 

message: I found the definition of de facto and de jure with regards to Standardisation that is given in this page to be at odds with a number of other sources. The impression given here is that de jure standards are ones that are used due to legal contract, whereas in other places (for example in a paper by Erik Duval entitled "Learning Technology Standardization: Making Sense of it all" ) de jure standards are those that are created by entities such as ISO and may or may not have mandated use associated with them. Duval also lists Microsoft Office as a de facto standard, illustrative of the issue that things that we sometimes call "standard" are often not necessarily "bringing benefits without hurting competition". This point might more correctly be associated with "Open standardisation". --JBrusey 23:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of de facto and de jure 

message: I've never heard of the term s13n. Can anyone add into this article how the term s13n came about, and why it means standardization?
I agree 69.213.70.93 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  s13n? 

message: The article "Standardization" requires cleanup? Doesn't anyone see the irony in that? Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm... Ironic... 

message: The articles are so related: the Standardization is the process adopted in the  Standards organizations for produce  Standards. There are more people for write a good article (!).
Please vote and justify:
Merge with the Standards organization article
Merge with the Standard article
:Readers will not want to read separate articles about standards, the standardization process and an overview of standards organizations. The information in these articles is of an introductory and overview nature and splitting it up does not help the reader. Combining it does not produce an overly long article. All of this should be merged into one Standard (technical) article (Standard should be the disambiguation page). Other articles can get into the details of individual standards and standards bodies. --Kvng (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on technical standards should remain basically as is.  the standards organization article is OK.  Not all "standardization" happens via a standards organization so perhaps it could remain.  I therefore suggest not merging.  However, there is much redundancy among the articles which needs to be cleaned up. Rlsheehan (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Standard]] or [[Standards organization]] 

message: Moshokoa Matome Raymond from bochum Bergendal Senwabarwana  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.218.222 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No References? 

message: In the various articles related to standardization and technical standards I failed to see any mention of even the most basic standards, like those kept by national bureaus for weight and measures.  Also missing are the most basic electrical standards (voltages, frequencies) and standard screw sizes.
I would like to add some information on the historical development of standards and the role of machine tool builders, but see no place that this fits into anything written here.Phmoreno (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonly used standards 

message: It does not belong in the article. I would create a disambiguation page if knew how and had time.Phmoreno (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other uses need to go to a disambiguation page 

message: From paragraph 2 of the lead:
:Standardization is defined as best technical application consentual wisdom inclusive of processes for selection in making appropriate choices for ratification coupled with consistent decisions for maintaining obtained standards. 
Huh? 208.50.124.65 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely. It is word salad, to the point that I can hardly guess whether it was a good-faith effort or an intentional punking (vandalism). I'm guessing the latter. I'm deleting it. Anyone who wants to try again with it will need to put the effort into clarifying it. I have not viewed this page in a long time, and your comment brought it to my attention on my watchlist. — ¾-10 00:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibberish? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Standardization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100903145102/http://www.iec.ch:80/about/history/articles/colonel_crompton.htm to http://www.iec.ch/about/history/articles/colonel_crompton.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Apart from noticing someone trying to be either funny or unethical in their use of "disinterested", I'm interested if there's anything to back up the statement about the reasons for not using the word "standard" in the name of RFCs or W3C Recs. If there is, then let's see it cited, perhaps? Both are standards according to the definition given at the beginning of this article. 
 they are rarely referred to as standards, so as to preserve that word as the domain of relatively disinterested bodies such as ISO
(in the section "Usage / information exchange")
(And as far as "being referred to" is concerned, then yes, they are constantly referred to as "standards" by anyone with even half a foot in the area.) I'll edit out the "relatively disinterested" for now. Bansp (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "disinterested bodies"