Re: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard

peace, standard is probably fine.  and it aligns with the IETF (not that many RFCs ever get there :-()

On Nov 12, 2013, at 15:00 , Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi, David–
> 
> I agree with you that "Recommendation" is a poor word.
> 
> I'd suggest that we do more than produce specifications; we also make comprehensive test suites, marshal together implementers, build consensus from key stakeholders, support a community of contributors and consumers, promote technologies, and many more things that nourish the ecosystem around a specification.
> 
> Anyone can write a specification, from a design document to an organization-internal set of guidelines; as such, it's not as meaningful a term as "standard", and doesn't match what we do as well.
> 
> Again, Wikipedia provides some useful distinction here [1]:
> 
> [[
> A technical standard is an established norm or requirement in regard to technical systems. It is usually a formal document that establishes uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes and practices. In contrast, a custom, convention, company product, corporate standard, etc. that becomes generally accepted and dominant is often called a de facto standard.
> 
> A technical standard can also be a controlled artifact or similar formal means used for calibration. Reference Standards and certified reference materials have an assigned value by direct comparison with a reference base. A primary standard is usually under the jurisdiction of a national standards body. Secondary, tertiary, check standards and standard materials may be used for reference in a metrology system. A key requirement in this case is (metrological) traceability, an unbroken paper trail of calibrations back to the primary standard.
> 
> A technical standard may be developed privately or unilaterally, for example by a corporation, regulatory body, military, etc. Standards can also be developed by groups such as trade unions, and trade associations. Standards organizations often have more diverse input and usually develop voluntary standards: these might become mandatory if adopted by a government, business contract, etc.
> ]]
> 
> By those criteria, W3C clearly produces voluntary standards, though not "primary standards" or mandatory standards.
> 
> I understand your concern about the implications that we are claiming to produce mandatory standards, which I agree is undesirable; but I think we can manage that in other messaging.
> 
> If you think it would cause friction with specific "real" (formal, mandatory, or government-endorsed) standards organizations, we should handle that with kid gloves, and make our intentions clear.
> 
> So, I would like to see us use the word "standard" in our formal communications, especially since people already use that for W3C Recommendations in the vernacular.
> 
> 
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_standard
> 
> Regards-
> -Doug
> 
> On 11/12/13 2:40 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> Hi Doug
>> 
>> I think the word 'standard' has overtones of something that is
>> endorsed or mandated, e.g. ITU standards for telecoms, and is
>> produced by a formal standards body.  I am not sure we want the
>> overtones.
>> 
>> I think we produce specifications, and that's a good word.
>> 
>> As I say, 'recommendation' is a poor word;  when we say something is
>> 'recommended' *within* a spec., it's a 'should' statement. Even in
>> normal english terms, what exactly are we 'recommending' and to whom
>> in our specs?
>> 
>> People who do formal standards might be concerned, though the IETF
>> uses the term and it's accepted there.  I don't think it would raise
>> too much opposition.
>> 
>> But, people say, casually, "go read the CSS specification", "it's in
>> the HTML spec", and we may as well embrace that and use the name.
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 14:33 , Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi, David–
>>> 
>>> On 11/12/13 10:29 AM, David Singer wrote:
>>>> Ouch.
>>>> 
>>>> Traditionally, 'standard' means something from a standards body,
>>>> and we are a trade association.  But I agree, 'recommendation' is
>>>> a poor word (who is recommending what?)
>>> 
>>> That's an interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with it, based on
>>> the definition of a trade association on Wikipedia [1] (emphasis
>>> mine).
>>> 
>>> [[ A trade association, also known as an industry trade group,
>>> business association or sector association, is an organization
>>> founded and funded by businesses that operate in a specific
>>> industry. An industry trade association participates in public
>>> relations activities such as advertising, education, political
>>> donations, lobbying and publishing, ***but its main focus is
>>> collaboration between companies, or standardization***.
>>> Associations may offer other services, such as producing
>>> conferences, networking or charitable events or offering classes or
>>> educational materials. Many associations are non-profit
>>> organizations governed by bylaws and directed by officers who are
>>> also members. ]]
>>> 
>>> However, I sense that there's some underlying reason you are shying
>>> away from the word "standard", and I think it would be valuable to
>>> explore any potential risks or confusion there.
>>> 
>>> Personally, as someone who does a lot of developer relations and
>>> outreach, it's burdensome to clarify to that audience what a
>>> "Recommendation" is, and I end up saying "it's what W3C calls a
>>> 'standard'", which is a known and common nomenclature (even
>>> informal groups like WHATWG use it for their deliverables). So,
>>> this would clarify and simplify our communications to several
>>> audiences.
>>> 
>>> Are there audiences we aren't thinking of that would react badly to
>>> our using the word "standard"?
>>> 
>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_association
>>> 
>>> Regards- -Doug
>>> 
>> 
>> David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2013 07:08:22 UTC