Posted by dorayme on 12/13/86 11:49

In article <1j7sbpcvohp81.dlg@markparnell.com.au>,
Mark Parnell <webmaster@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:

> Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme
> <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> declared in alt.html:
>
> > This is either a confusion or a non sequitur. You need to look
> > hard at what you mean by an "imperfect standard". This can mean a
> > variety of different things.
>
> Something being a "standard" doesn't necessarily make it good or right,
> as you previously noted. A perfect standard is one that has no flaws. An
> imperfect standard is one that has at least one flaw, no matter how
> minor.

A "perfect standard" is a term you are using that has no clear
meaning. Be careful not to put too much weight on it.

There would be a few types of things that would make a standard
imperfect (but probably not at all what you have in mind. What
you have in mind, from the evidence so far, is perhaps something
confused or obscure if I may say without offence?)

A standard can be imperfect in the way a tool can be, it does not
do the job intended for it. It can be confused internally, not
make proper sense, it can be obscure and so and so on. Think HTML
and CSS. But if it is quite clear, not vague at all, not
internally contradictory and does do the job intended for it,
then "perfection" is not usually to the point. A standard for one
purpose might be no good for another purpose. It can, contrary to
what you said, indeed have "no flaws" but this only means it is
clear, can be applied and does the job intended.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]