Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gumby.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!gumby!g-patter From: g-patter@gumby.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Standardization Message-ID: <322@gumby.UUCP> Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 15:00:42 EST Article-I.D.: gumby.322 Posted: Thu Feb 28 15:00:42 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Mar-85 03:13:58 EST Distribution: net Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 27 Seems like snowballing with my claim that "the plural of standards is an oxymoron." I thought my meaning was fairly clear, but seeing as it isn't, I shall elucidate..... In one sense, standard is quite reasonably pluralized. So is "water." I'm still of the opinion that if you have more than one standard, you have none....within a given domain. To slightly extend the metric messages (:-) that have recently cropped up, does the existence of a standard meter preclude the standard for anything else, anywhere else? You've got the right idea, but not far enough. Conflicting standards within a domain DO negate each other's worth WITHIN that domain. Oh, sure, you can have an ISO standard Pascal, an ANSI standard Pascal, etc....but this still leaves you without aSTANDARD PASCAL. Within their respective domains, both of the above ARE standard. But how about in the enclosing domain of "Pascal users, generally?" The original context was that there is no unified standard. I'm quite willing for you to disagree, as long as you're objecting to what I meant, not what I said (or didn't say)(:-). I'll be happy to continue this rationally, but the metric analogies are getting to be a bit much, and don't really belong here anyway. Constructive responses to me or this group, flames to /dev/null. I hope I've shed a little glimmer on what was originally a bit obscure (since compounded by citing out-of-context). -Steve Patterson, UWMadison