> But that doesn’t still make the specification “standardised” for anyone else.
Of course not, and no one has claimed that this is a globally recognized standard. The only thing that has been claimed is that they have standarized it for _themselves_.
It's important to get semantics right, and it's equally important to really read and understand what's being said, and not assume something "more" is being said than what is really said.
> it means that standards shouldn't be changed (e.g. to improve them)
I think it's more nuanced than that. It means standards shouldn't be changed in a way that breaks backward compatibility. That seems like an important feature of any standard.
You have it reversed. The truism you're looking for is: "Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's correct." Don't let Likes and Followers culture fool you.
If you want to make your own SI, feel free to use it however you want. If you use the SI, you MUST (RFC 2119) follow the official SI brochure, otherwise you're objectively wrong. That's what standards mean, and they exist for many good reasons.
It's not your fault. This flavor of philosophical deterioration happens when you tell an entire generation to follow their heart, everybody's a winner, and there's no wrong just "different." This mental trap is hard to escape, and worse it impedes self-improvement.
Sorry, but you completely misunderstand the point.
The point is that, in the real world, there are subtle variations outside of your control and de facto standards arise independently and have slight differences before official standardization can occur because of the need to ship product. Attempting to stomp your foot to demand others conform to your way is unrealistic, unreasonable, and childish. Utility is had in working-around quirky differences for maximum practical compatibility while persuasively encouraging projects with minor incompatibilities to adopt conforming behavior.
That seems like an odd decision? It's like saying there is no consensus for which side of the road to drive on, so let's not pick one. Standardization is arbitrary but useful here.
I would argue that it’s not an industry standard unless it’s back by some sort of ISO like RFC. I’d also argue that it’s not an accepted term as _many_ people don’t agree with its misleading name, for example I personally see it as marketing spin.
reply