Talk:Open standard

message: There's a duplicate entry for TCP on examples section. My unregistered IP can't edit it. Someone please do it when you see this or spot the mistake.
201.14.160.156 (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. Thanks. It's gone. --Nigelj (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate entry 

message: I'm a little curious at the fact that a programming language which has exactly one full (and non-portable) implementation is listed among the open standards for programming languages while ECMAScript (one of the most obvious choices, I would think, as it is the scripting language of the web) isn't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.146.225.228 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECMAScript? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Open standard. 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/20051022053754/http://www.pdf-x.com:80/pdfx_123_1.php to http://www.pdf-x.com/pdfx_123_1.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090509190132/http://www.dst.gov.za:80/media-room/speeches/archived/speech.2007-05-23.2477659151 to http://www.dst.gov.za/media-room/speeches/archived/speech.2007-05-23.2477659151
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 11:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The model started to shift, however, in 2006 and since the XML standard Microsoft has been earning a better reputation within the open-source and open-standards community"
That sentence does not specify whether "XML standard" refers to ISO-26300 or ISO-29500 or both.  As such, it is highly ambiguous, and potentially misleading.
As for the claim that Microsoft earned a better reputation with either, please "view history" of this talk; also http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20051216153153504 .
198.102.62.250 (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the paper cited to support that statement. It seems to refer to the Microsoft Office Open XML standard. Since it was published in 2006, I don't see how it can be a source for a statement about what has happened since then. Actually, I don't think it has much to say about Microsoft "earning a better reputation within the open-source and open-standards community" at all. Maybe someone would like to find and quote here the sentence in the cited paper that gives that impression. We do know - it is well documented on- and off-wiki - that Microsoft shills have been quite frequent editors on our articles. --Nigelj (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft and XML 

message: It is unclear to me if we should include the Matrix protocol here.  I could be wrong I think it is more like an open source product than an interface standard as  it is portrayed here.   I am thinking we should remove the entry for now and talk about it here.  But I am not an expert at the Matrix solution and  haven't worked with it so I would cede to someone with more knowledge. Alex Jackl (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed entry since no counter-suggestions were added here.  Alex Jackl (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21487164/return-code-22-fatal-git-http-push-failed 49.237.34.25 (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matrix Protocol