Talk:Open standard

1

Closed Standards
Would it make sense to include something like:

"A closed standard, on the other hand, is a file format, protocol or program which has wide public acceptance, but which does not comply with the requirements for a free/libre or open standard. Examples include file formats or protocols whose specifications are not publicly available, software whose source code is not available, and patent-encumbered technologies. Closed standards are typically developed by private companies with limited public or even industry participation." Then, redirect closed standard to Open standard? - K (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Closed standard" is generally called "proprietary", and/or possibly "patented". Already this article has too much POV from "Open Source" supporters, when "Open Standards" were defined entirely independently. When in 1989 Compaq led the consortium of personal computer manufacturing companies informally called the "Gang of Nine" (that together defined the EISA bus): AST Research, Seiko Epson Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, NEC Corporation, Olivetti, Tandy Corporation, WYSE and Zenith Data Systems; the GNU project, started in 1983, and the Free Software Foundation in 1985, were still embryonic and their "open" concepts derived independently with very different definitions and goals. Specifically, the industry "open standard" ideas were made top-down for the benefit of fellow manufacturers and not necessarily customers, certainly not the general public. While consortiums were and are happy to define Open Standards as a concept as well as develop such individual standards, they did not define "closed standards" or "closed source". Those are retroactive concepts developed by Free/Libre Software and Open Source supporters, which may have validity, at least to other supporters, Wikipedia articles should also appreciate industry insiders POV. If someone could cite such definitions from publications by industry, I would gladly recant. But there's little objectivity, and too many "definitions" here from organizations with little influence. For example, does the Open Source Foundation's definition of "open standards" applicable to any organization who does not want to participate in, for example, Open-source Hardware or software projects? Perhaps the European Union, but I'm not sure that anyone not seeking "FOSS" approval is influenced or even cares. Certainly that was true in the beginnings of industry "Open Standards". It wasn't relevant to them. I think much of these definitions have to be put in context. By the way, I'm in no sense an enemy of FOSS, on the contrary, I'm deeply concerned that manufacturers may be totally dismissive of such standards conceived and only relevant in "bubbles of self-important organizations". Objective description are necessary for non-supporters to take it seriously.

Meaningless sentence?
It's probably a typo, but can someone restore the following sentence to whatever the consensus on this article thinks it should say. The second half of it does not seem to have any discernible meaning at the moment. --Nigelj (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good grief. Six years go by, no one comments, no one acts, and I forgot. I have finally removed that nonsense sentence today. --Nigelj (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to find a website that will confirm my identity. Anyone know of a good one? Travismittleider (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * confirm your identity to yourself? on Wikipedia?

Duplicate entry
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)
 * Well spotted. Thanks. It's gone. --Nigelj (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

ECMAScript?
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft and XML
"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)
 * 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)

Matrix Protocol
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)
 * Removed entry since no counter-suggestions were added here. Alex Jackl (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21487164/return-code-22-fatal-git-http-push-failed 49.237.34.25 (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)