On 4/25/05, Jack Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 05:48:34PM -0400, Ryan Osial wrote: > > [snip] > > > One thing I'd like to point out is that I dislike the use of the word > > 'standard' in the official name. When I think of standard, I think of > > something coming out of IEEE or an RFC doc. Not something a company > > releases. There are already enough companies with self-proclaimed > > standards. But that might just be me. > > > > Open spec rather than open standard more closely reflects what I have > > come to understand as the goal of this project. > > Since I started offering suggestions that included the concept of > "standard", I've continued to think about this. > A standard is basically a logically precise document that nails down > the interface that an object presents to the outside world. A standard is > all about interoperability. It's more important that a standard be > logically complete, stable, and published, than that it be published by an > accredited organization. Standards do sometimes originate with companies or > unincorporated groups, and later receive approval from official bodies if > they're well-written and stable.
Yes, a standard can be used to interoperate, so can specs. And maybe it's just a semantical thing. To me, if someone said "here's the spec to some hardware," I'd think that they provided a way for software to interoperate with that hardware. If someone said "here's the standard to some hardware," I'd think that they were giving me an approved layout on how things work to create my own hardware to interoperate with software. Maybe I'm separating the two words further than most. The goal is hardware and software independence, so I guess the expectations from the past don't quite apply here. > This project is creating an exact description of the programming > model, and that qualifies in my mind as a standard. > At this point, I'm thinking that perhaps a name like "Graphios" or > anything else encompassing the word "standard" should be applied to the > standard, and not to the product. A family of standard-compliant boards > could perhaps have its own distinguishing name. > The O clearly stands for "open", but whether the S stands for > "standard", "spec", or something else, might well be left to the perception > of the beholder. A line of products conforming to a spec. That would make a standard for me. More than one piece of hardware is required before its a standard, in my opinion. > I like something ending in "os" or "ios" because it has something of > an elegant, classical Greek feeling to it. As I said at the beginning, one > of the impressions the name should present to the embedded computing > community is that these boards and drivers are designed right and built for > the long haul. A published binary interface standard is part of that > picture. Does that make sense? I also like ending in os or ios, it does flow nicely. Yes, you've explained yourself well. I think I'm splitting hairs over silly details. I tend to do that. :-P -Ryan _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
