From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 24000 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2023 23:49:38 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (2600:3c01:e000:146::1) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 17 Aug 2023 23:49:38 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C3440AE1; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 09:49:36 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuhs.org; s=dkim; t=1692316176; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-owner:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=rYvARo3Whjs+8MKNIKIZq63kvSo5yxaz5RjpHy9m/e0=; b=zRia917PFN5sbXPtq6oQluYRvWGoSYzZGgBdtfPdVjkJHHqO11n7Bdecgi8CQ0LvVcO05O MDszQetv5oX6148/TOcnPpzK0gnbJPErst0iE3oHjGSRh8tOv0m/WQ+cLwFuI7kz7VKRVi ym0sFGtfc1ozoCNYcHhZ4yn4jVjFhUI= Received: from mail-4324.protonmail.ch (mail-4324.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.24]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0454440034 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 09:49:32 +1000 (AEST) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 23:49:13 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1692316169; x=1692575369; bh=rYvARo3Whjs+8MKNIKIZq63kvSo5yxaz5RjpHy9m/e0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=FJLv668gLwS0AlNvlbRHqoWIhyaXZmv8tGsW63qzVI2rhy3Kro2EqoOgzXhKAPpgJ aotY/UWATaGY8oQql1QpFLUc1wUCovxbnnAe6ZOLAQKFYYVxd+oN+yN+owOPq89z58 S2tI4hf2nGyjUsDh6TAEDY2p/yLi6X8bblpjNd50LZb1aNB5p9VJqQYg59E6fZoZU3 9a07Yv+iN/L6alcbxWGTRU1ef1H+cRFqemvbiub9rs5SB365jL22oxAIrP/B1QMVBf fUlMDaDNOrFMWu9ykwiNUMlW2jXKeFduk3gZJHK5C+ghnJlJHMK96X1bm/qEx0jYWp LWx6FdyBPtFUg== To: COFF Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <94a15687-0349-c05b-6e5d-7ad6f1d74ab7@riddermarkfarm.ca> References: <94a15687-0349-c05b-6e5d-7ad6f1d74ab7@riddermarkfarm.ca> Feedback-ID: 35591162:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID-Hash: TRN2VJHPPF2ZDAQ2ELPYJBEJS4IHB3E3 X-Message-ID-Hash: TRN2VJHPPF2ZDAQ2ELPYJBEJS4IHB3E3 X-MailFrom: segaloco@protonmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [COFF] Re: Commonality of 60s-80s Print Standards List-Id: Computer Old Farts Forum Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: From: segaloco via COFF Reply-To: segaloco > > Am I getting into apples vs oranges here? >=20 >=20 > Yes. In some areas (such as crypto, whence I came), if you did > not follow the standards, then you would not interoperate. There were > no testing labs for compliance (as there was for FIPS, for example). > I recall compliance tests for ANSI C but that stopped with the > adoption of ISO C (if my aging memory is correct). >=20 > S. Okay I think it's making sense to me now. So the apples of programming sta= ndards would come down to: - If you want to advertise/contract for interoperability with standards= -compliant components, then your component must likewise adhere or you are = lying to your customers and liable. - Otherwise, if you just want to push something but don't want to pad y= our market performance with attracting vendors interested in said interoper= ability, you're free to do so and don't face legal ramifications, you're ju= st selling what could be assessed as a sub-par product, but you're within y= our legal right to do so as long as you don't suggest otherwise. Whereas the oranges of EPA standards I'm trying to compare it to are: - If you want to produce legal regulatory information that can be used = in EPA-related disputes, you must adhere to these legally binding regulatio= ns put out by the EPA. - You can tell someone yeah I'll test your water for lead, but if they = intend to use that number in litigation, a formal environmental survey, or = some other legally-binding case, then you're held to the higher standard. = In this case the particulars do matter because you're not selling a random = product on the market, you're specifically selling regulatory acceptability= as a factor of the product. I presume the only situations then where adherence to a programming standar= d by ANSI or another body could actually play some legal role in their oper= ation are either: - The vendor is under contract to ensure the product they're producing = is conformant (i.e. USDoD requiring NT to present POSIX calls) - The vendor cites the standard in published material as applying to th= eir product But in both cases their due diligence is to prove that they're meeting the = standards *for customers that expect it* not that there is any legal requir= ement that they do this in absence of said expectation. - Matt G. P.S. I'll disclaim for anyone that answers that I'm not seeking legal advis= e by the way, I don't want anyone to feel like they're under the microscope= on this :P If the day comes I'm citing COFF in a court of law I'll just t= ry and fly to Jupiter because bizarro world is probably upon us.