On Sun Aug 14, 2022 at 6:35 PM EDT, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > At 2022-08-14T14:49:10+0000, DJ Chase wrote: > > On Sun Aug 14, 2022 at 9:56 AM EDT, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > > > DJ Chase wrote on Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 05:27:34PM +0000: > > > > > > > Have we ever considered a de jure *roff standard? > > > > > > No, i think that would be pure madness given the amount of working > > > time available in any of the roff projects. > > Mark your calendars--Ingo and I are in substantial agreement. ;-) > > > This is very sad to hear. > > I think the take-away here is that the decision to formally standardize > a technology, like many things, is an economic one. There are costs and > benefits. Being seduced by the benefits without a full understanding of > the costs often leads to remorse. (And, in many domains, fat > commissions for sales personnel.) > > > That’s probably because *I* massively overrate the importance of > > standardization (I mean I literally carry a standards binder with me). > > Still, though, it’s rather annoying that end users — especially > > programmers — don’t value standards as much. > > I think it is less that programmers value standards in the wrong amount, > than that they disregard them for the wrong reasons--like "moving fast" > and building fragile solutions that will cost more on the back end after > higher-paid decision makers have moved on to greener pastures. > > Nothing succeeds like handing your successor a trash fire. > > > Would an informal de jure standard > > You just defined "de facto standard". ;-) > > "De jure" is Latin for "of the law". If something is not codified in > "law", or a normative document like a formal standard, then what is > "standard" is simply the intersection of prevailing practices. By “informal de jure”, I meant ‘de jure, but written in an informal manner’. > > be of any use? Like how TOML just has a specification, but it’s > > somewhat usable as a standard because it’s been pretty stable and > > because it’s written clearly enough. > > A purely descriptive document, mainly comprising a matrix of features > with escape sequence, request, and predefined register names on one axis > and the names of implementations on the other, with version numbers and > commentary populating the elements, could be a useful thing to have. I’m on it (except not really, because we’re in the middle of a move, school resumes shortly, and etc. But eventually™, I’m on it). Cheers, -- DJ Chase They, Them, Theirs
