Talk:ISO/IEC JTC 1

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Question 1

Is it true that every International Standard JTC1 develops has an ISO/IEC xxx designation?

Yes 03:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not completely. Some standards are developed under the ISO/IEEE Partnership Standards Development Organization (PSDO) Agreement and may have a designation of ISO/IEEE (if the PSDO is between IEEE and an ISO Technical Committee) or ISO/IEC/IEEE (if the PSDO is between IEEE and an JTC 1 Subommittee) Johnnie Barcode (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2

And is it true that every International Standard designated as ISO/IEC xxx is developed by JTC1? --Abdull (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Many standards are developed externally and come in at various stages of acceptability. In most cases the Steering Committee takes over the drafting and editing and brings it to completion. Because of the demand for supposedly more agile processes and the popularity of consortia like W3C, various fast-tracking procedures have been created so that external drafts are brought in at different stages from certain external consortia, under the assumption that they are close to meeting the requirements of interest to JTC1. For example, at SC34 OASIS RELAX NG was brought in to be part of the IS DSDL standard with little change. Mostly this is uncontroversial, however the ODF and OOXML standards, always destined for controversy, were both regarded as coming in deficient conditions, though with different causes (ODF had a development strategy that it would fill in gaps later, while OOXML had a development strategy that it should be complete).Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence "Membership greatly expanded in August and September 2007, just prior to the initial vote on Office Open XML as DIS (Draft International Standard) 29500.[citation needed]" is wrong. The membership of JTC1 did not alter. What happened was that there were successive waves of pro- and anti- OOXML national bodies who changed their status wrt SC34 participation, however, they were already JTC1 members (otherwise they could not change their status to "P" or "O" participants.) This kind of conflation of SC34 with all JTC1, and JTC1 with all ISO, (and indeed, WG4 with all SC34) has allowed people to make all sorts of overly-broad generalizations. 03:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Added Sections and Restructuring

I am an editor affiliated with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and JTC 1. I added the sections "History," "Guiding Principles," "JTC1 PAS Process," and "Members," and reorganized "Subcommittees" (now called "Structure"). I also moved the mandate paragraph under "Scope and Mission," and made a number of grammatical changes, as well as a number of changes to incorrect or outdated information, though a good deal of the original content was kept. Feedback on the article would be greatly appreciated, as would be the addition of any citations.

LauraALo (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

123

123 182.239.122.156 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/IEC redirect

ISO/IEC redirects to this article. Separately, there are many instances of separately linked ISO/IEC constructs. In terms of WP:ASTONISH and WP:SOB, it would seem to be a good idea to replace the latter with the former. That is unless there is other joint ISO/IEC work done outside ISO/IEC JTC 1. Does any such work exist? ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]