It's an issue of where the people who want a standard think they will
have the support to create a standard using a process they are
comfortable with. Yes, the standards for many languages, not to mention
the original ASCII character set, were developed under ANSI. But look
at JavaScript I mean ECMAScript done under the auspices of ECMA. Sun
started to create a Java standard under ISO/IEC but changed their mind
and switched to their own Java Community Process. The National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (formerly the National
Bureau of Standards) publishes standards for some things of interest to
the US Government -- Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS).
In most cases the work is done by volunteers, often with the support of
their employers if they aren't an independent consultant or whatever.
The accrediting organization provides the process and some
administrative overhead. I don't know about now, but ANSI sold copies
of their standards to help support themselves.
And standards are used as competitive weapons by companies. If Company
A convinces the committee that their language features are better than
company B's, and A's are written into the standard, then A is
standard-compliant (with respect to those features) from the get-go,
while B will have some work to do which may affect their customer base.
Generally, I believe that people want to get a standard which will give
them a programming language (& library) that they want to use, so there
is a common goal in sight. Traditionally standards were adopted from
existing practice, and sometimes this can mean that the process is
relatively quick. (I think the original COBOL standard was taken from a
manufacturer's language reference manual by Grace Hopper. ISOLatin-1 was
a small change to the DEC Multinational Character Set.) Sometimes a
committee starts reinventing things and it can take a while. Whether or
not it actually finds users depends on how well the committee did their
job, and what the vendors and their customers decide. (Dare I mention
BASIC?)
Remember that standards also cover many other things like the SAE
standards for bolts.
- Aron (a member of X3J16 [C++] for 2 years)
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:22 PM segaloco via TUHS
<tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
wrote:
Good morning, I was wondering if anyone has the scoop on the
rationale behind the selection of standards bodies for the
publication of UNIX and UNIX-adjacent standards. C was
published via the ANSI route as X3.159, whereas POSIX was
instead published by the IEEE route as 1003.1. Was there
every any consideration of C through IEEE or POSIX through
ANSI instead? Is there an appreciable difference suggested by
the difference in publishers? In any case, both saw
subsequent adoption by ISO/IEC, so the track to an
international standard seems to lead to the same organizations.
- Matt G.