Three misconceptions about ISO standards: what we can learn from hexalobular internal driving features
I have been hearing a lot of fine sentiments about ISO standards recently. Is a high bar being drawn that does not reflect established practice objectively evidenced by the catalog of ISO standards?
There can only be one ISO standard for any application area
Oh yeah? What about ISO FORTRAN, ISO PASCAL, ISO Eiffel, ISO Common LISP, ISO C, ISO BASIC, ISO ADA, ISO C++, ISO C#, ISO EcmaScript, and so on? These are all programming languages, with enormous overlap in what they can be used for. What about ISO DTD, ISO RELAX NG and ISO Schematron? These are schema languages, again with enormous overlap in what they can be used for. What about ISO POSIX and ISO Linux Standard Base? What about (Ecma sponsored) ISO9660 disk format and (Ecma sponsored) ISO13346 UDF disk format?
ISO Standards must be made by combining the best of all worlds, and cannot rubberstamp a technology that came from a single vendor
Oh yeah? What about ISO 10664 Hexalobular internal driving feature for bolts and screws - Torx screw head? What about ISO PDF, ISO C#? What about (JIS sponsored) ISO QR Codes? (“QR Code is open in the sense that the specification of QR Code is disclosed and that the patent right owned by Denso Wave is not exercised.”)
In an ISO standard, all elements should be supported by all application for interoperability
Oh yeah? What about ISO ODF s1.6 There are no rules regarding the elements and attributes that actually have to be supported by conforming applications?