Talk:De facto standard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Valid for inclusion?

(for a new approach see #Examples below --Krauss (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

I think it's fair to say that EXIF, great as it may be, is not an example of a de facto standard file format. Not all cameras and certainly many image applications do not use or understand this format. So I'll remove that from the list. --DuLithgow (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

AutoCAD is on the list of 'Computer file formats' as an example of a de facto something, but AutoCAD is not a format at all, so I'm not sure what the editor was thinking there. I'm removing it. --DuLithgow (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensual definition

It is necessary to fix here a good (scientific) and consensual definition, valid to all encyclopedic uses of de facto standard concept into the Wikipedia.

Suggestion 1

A de facto standard is a product, process, or system used as solution for a coordination problem, and that has achieved a dominant position.

Problem: introduce a very formal concept (from game theory), but it is scientific and encyclopedic.

Suggestion 2

A de facto standard is a product, process, or system that has achieved a dominant position.

Problem: what kind of "product, process, or system"? (need define to close the definition). "Dominant" about what context?

Suggestion 3

A de facto standard is a standard (formal or informal) that has achieved a dominant position, like a tradition.

Problem: ??

Please vote (suggestion number, user name, date):

• I prefer 3. I don't think coordination problem should be mentioned in the definition of de facto standard. The idea of a coordination problem is one possible explanation of why standards end up being adopted, but I'm not sure it's the only one, and anyway it should be part of the discussion, not part of the definition. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• I vote 3. It is less formal than 1, less "open" than 2, and more informative. --Krauss (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• I vote #3 also. #1 is too confusing to the average mind, and #2 tries to include too much and isn't "tight" enough. ... discospinster _talk 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• #3 is self contradictory. It says that a standard is either formal or informal, yet that page is limited to only formal engineering documents. A "de facto standard" does not have to be a formal document: it can be a product, process or system. Only a small number of formal technical stadnards become "de facto standards" and dominate the market. I vote for # 2 for clarity. Rlsheehan (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC) If people like aspects of #2, then consider: ;Suggestion 4: A de facto standard is an established norm or requirement (formal or informal) that has achieved a dominant position, like a tradition. Rlsheehan (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

End of votation (23 Feb 2008).

I have used this input to improve the intro paragraph. It seems to read well. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am using the voted definition. --Krauss (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Examples

There are a "SORTING BY" and "add to list" criteria:

• To list only "Well-known examples";
• Sort by "how much well-known", "how really strong the standard", and "how simple to understand"; for a tipical Wiki-reader.

But another suggestions (examples) can stay here for future use, or organization of a "comprehensive listing":

• AutoCAD format (need to see the "de facto computer file format" of AutoCAD).
• The RⁿRS standard is the de facto standard for the programming language Scheme.
• ... add here your example ...
• Man and women shirts buttonholes pattern is not a standard but have a well known moivation, middleage rich women never dress up

alone and were always dressed up by servant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.59.10 (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Driver's seat side?

This needs to be clarified. The side the driver sits on is directly derived from the direction of lanes on a two-way road (which is usually a de jure standard). The driver should sit closest to the center line to make it much easier to avoid crossing said line. Merely stating "driver's seat side" without qualifiers, as currently in the article, implies that automobile manufacturers came to this conclusion without government influence, which while it may be technically true, is misleading.Roothorick (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)