> I mean it's really hard to actually read it, once you've paid the $15k or > so to actually get the documents. (You can get an idea by looking at the > draft standards.) This is done so the people who wrote the standards get > to keep their jobs as the people who read and explain the standards to you > in plain english.
As someone who writes standards, I have to disagree with this. It is extremely difficult to write standards, and the language comes from the need to say specific things in a general way that will be legally enforcable should the standard be adopted as law directly or by reference. Look at the NEC. In many places it refers to an "ungrounded current carrying conductor", which in the vernacular is a "hot". Problem is, "hot" is an ambiguous term that works fine in casual conversation but not in a standard. If you are trying to make a specific rule for all hots everywhere in the country you have to use generalized languge or it will not be enforceable. This brings up another point about forming a legal entitity. If EMC goes the non-profit route it would be better able to contribute to standards than individuals. Each standards making organization has it's own rules for participation, but most ANSI standards groups have a User interest category that often needs members. I have not looked into it in depth, and would be willing to if there is interest, but it is possible that EMC as an entity would be able to send a representative to the task group that maintains the G-code standard. That could have tremedous value. Thanks, Javid ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
