That's actually a very, very good comparison, it certainly helps me see it in a different way. For some of the background on the angle I'm approaching this from: I've worked in the EPA-regulated US environmental sector since late 2012, first as a chemist for 4 years until enough patches and suggestions up to our data system team got me on their radar enough to jump over the fence. Back in the lab days, our governing literature came from only a handful of sources: - EPA SW-846 ("Waste") - EPA Clean Water Act (NPDES, "Wastewater") - ASTM - Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater Each of these groups maintains (the former two, gratis, the later two for licensing fees...) a plethora of chemical analysis methodology, often quite prescriptive, describing the legal expectations of running that method. In all my time working with the methods, we always, and I mean *always* had a copy of the legally binding document at arms length, often copies littered throughout the lab (although any formal investigation or dispute required a "controlled" signed and dated copy from the QA office.) On the flip side, I don't recall seeing *any* sort of general literature books around the lab akin to the computing books we see everywhere that were derivatives and digestions *of* the lore that was the legally binding method text. Then our work is usually broken up by program (and by matrix i.e. solid, water, organic waste) and the appropriate method for the program, permit, and sample matrix must be strictly adhered to. For instance, if you are running anything related to the Clean Water Act in wastewater for mid-level heavy metals analysis, it must be EPA method 200.7, no ifs ands or buts about it. As such, working from literally any other document is just setting yourself up for disaster because then, what if that author left out that you need to perform a filtration on the field-preserved sample before it goes on the instrument or it isn't valid 200.7 analysis? A book on ICP-AES may not tell you that, some random work someone wrote commenting on their experiences or observations with heavy metals analysis may not mention that little bit, but you can sure as heck bet that it will be precisely in section whatever subsection whatever paragraph whatever of the legally binding document. If you didn't read the standard and skipped this step, at the very least your data gets recalled, at most, you wind up in court for data fraud. Am I getting into apples vs oranges here? Is the difference here that standards like the ANSI standards here are more like "you must conform to this to say that you conform to it" but you do not need to conform to this to say that you are programming in a given programming language, or to sell products on a specific platform or in a specific industry, or something like that. Perhaps what I'm missing is the difference between the regulatory teeth involved in the EPA's expectation of data quality vs the fact that "quality" in off the shelf computing products on the private market is a suggestion, not a legal requirement to even operate? Is it that standards existed as a way to give products a nice marketing banner to fly under if they so chose and way to signal quality and compatibility to customers with the confidence that others won't go parading around like they're also comparable when they really aren't? That would certainly explain the difference between what I see in my chemistry side of things and what I see in computing if the expectation of computing standards is just "you don't have to follow this, but if you do you can flaunt it"? To put it even shorter, as a chemist working with regulatory EPA methodology, my bookshelf better be full of those legal documents and my work better *perfectly* match it or I can find myself in all sorts of hot water. For most bookshelves of programming books I've seen in stores, libraries, professors offices, etc. I scarcely *ever* see governing documents at all despite countless languages being legally defined and yet everyone hums along business as usual. Thanks for entertaining this question by the way, it's kinda "out there" but this is like the only circle of folks I've found that I consistently hear good insights on this sort of stuff from, which I appreciate. I wish I could articulate what I'm getting at more succinctly but it is what it is. - Matt G.

Okay I think it's making sense to me now. So the apples of programming standards 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 your market performance with attracting vendors interested in said interoperability, you're free to do so and don't face legal ramifications, you're just selling what could be assessed as a sub-par product, but you're within your 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 regulations 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 standard by ANSI or another body could actually play some legal role in their operation 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 their 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 requirement 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 advise 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 try and fly to Jupiter because bizarro world is probably upon us.