“草稿”的有效性如何？ [英] How valid is a "draft"?
问题描述
您好！我在网上找到了（ www.open-std.org ）我认为的是什么C标准
C99和C89的草稿。我认为下载是合法的，因为我没有消息（对不起我可怕的英语:)下载
或要求付款。
WG14 / N843委员会草案 - 1998年8月3日
委员会草案 - 1999年1月18日WG14 / N869
这些是文件的标题，所以我推断它们是C98和C99的草稿
:)
这些'草稿'是否有效真正的标准？如果是，为什么我们必须支付一个有效的标准作为免费的标准。草稿？
和最后一个问题（更哲学）？难道不应该是免费的吗？
我认为一个标准的任务是尽可能多的人可能跟着它，
对吗？
问候
-
Luis AlbertoGiménez
JabberID： Si*******@amessage.de
GnuPG ID：0x3BAABDE1
Hello! I found on the web (www.open-std.org) what I think are C standard
drafts for C99 and C89. I suppose it is legal to download since tere
is no message forbiding (sorry for my terrible english :) to download
or requesting payment.
WG14/N843 Committee Draft -- August 3, 1998
Committee Draft -- January 18, 1999 WG14/N869
Those are the file''s headers, so I deduced they''re drafts of C98 and C99
:)
Are those ''drafts'' as valid as the real standard? If they are, why must
we pay for a standard as valid as a "free" draft?
And the last question (more philosophic) ?Shouldn''t a standard be free?
I think a standard mission is that as much people as possible follow it,
right?
Regards
--
Luis Alberto Giménez
JabberID: Si*******@amessage.de
GnuPG ID: 0x3BAABDE1
推荐答案
"AlbertoGiménez" <人**** @ teleline.es>在消息中写道
news：mr *********** @ 127.0.0.1 ...
"Alberto Giménez" <al****@teleline.es> wrote in message
news:mr***********@127.0.0.1...
你好！我在网上找到了（ www.open-std.org ）我认为的是什么C标准的C99和C89草稿。我认为下载是合法的，因为没有消息禁止（抱歉我可怕的英语:)下载
或要求付款。
WG14 / N843委员会草案 - 1998年8月3日
委员会草案 - 1999年1月18日WG14 / N869
那些是文件的标题，所以我推断它们是C98和C99的草稿
:)
那些草稿是否与真正的标准一样有效？
他们相当接近，但他们不是官方规格，
和实际标准一样。对于大多数情况来说，它们通常足够了。
如果是这样的话，为什么我们必须支付一个有效的标准作为免费的标准。草案？
他们没有标准那么有效。
最后一个问题（更哲学）？难道不应该是免费的吗？ />我认为一个标准的任务是尽可能多的人遵循它，
对吗？
Hello! I found on the web (www.open-std.org) what I think are C standard
drafts for C99 and C89. I suppose it is legal to download since tere
is no message forbiding (sorry for my terrible english :) to download
or requesting payment.
WG14/N843 Committee Draft -- August 3, 1998
Committee Draft -- January 18, 1999 WG14/N869
Those are the file''s headers, so I deduced they''re drafts of C98 and C99
:)
Are those ''drafts'' as valid as the real standard?
They''re fairly close, but they''re not the official specifications,
as are the actual standards. They''re typically sufficient for
most cases.
If they are, why must
we pay for a standard as valid as a "free" draft?
They''re not as valid as the standards.
And the last question (more philosophic) ?Shouldn''t a standard be free?
I think a standard mission is that as much people as possible follow it,
right?
开发和发布标准需要花钱（在另外
到委员会成员捐赠的时间）。谁支付了费用？
无论如何，付出的确是一个问题
It costs money to develop and publish the standard (in addition
to the time the committee members donate). Who pays for the costs?
Anyway, is it really an issue to pay about
20（
$ b的价格） （b .PDF版本）这个有多大价值的东西？
-Mike
20 (the price for
the .PDF version) for something of this much value?
-Mike
AlbertoGiménez写道：
Alberto Giménez wrote:
你好！我在网上找到了（ www.open-std.org ）我认为的是什么C标准的C99和C89草稿。我认为下载是合法的，因为没有消息禁止（抱歉我可怕的英语:)下载
或要求付款。
WG14 / N843委员会草案 - 1998年8月3日
委员会草案 - 1999年1月18日WG14 / N869
那些是文件的标题，所以我推断它们是C98和C99的草稿
:)
真实标准（C99，没有C98）的页面顶部是
ISO / IEC ISO / IEC 9899：1999（E）
参考编号
ISO / IEC 9899：1999（E）
ISO / IEC 1999
INTERNATIONAL
标准
ISO / IEC
9899
第二版
1999-12-01
编程语言--- C
Langages de programmation --- C
那些是''草稿''和真正的标准一样有效吗？
他们不是。
如果是，为什么我们必须支付一个有效的标准作为免费的标准。草案？
他们不是，所以问题的第二部分是可以忽略的。
和最后一个问题（更哲学）？不应该是标准是免费的吗？
Hello! I found on the web (www.open-std.org) what I think are C standard
drafts for C99 and C89. I suppose it is legal to download since tere
is no message forbiding (sorry for my terrible english :) to download
or requesting payment.
WG14/N843 Committee Draft -- August 3, 1998
Committee Draft -- January 18, 1999 WG14/N869
Those are the file''s headers, so I deduced they''re drafts of C98 and C99
:)
The top-of-page for the real standard (C99, there is not C98) is
ISO/IEC ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E)
Reference number
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)
ISO/IEC 1999
INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD
ISO/IEC
9899
Second edition
1999-12-01
Programming languages --- C
Langages de programmation --- C
Are those ''drafts'' as valid as the real standard?
They are not.
If they are, why must
we pay for a standard as valid as a "free" draft?
They''re not, so the second part of the question is ignorable.
And the last question (more philosophic) ?Shouldn''t a standard be free?
你认为_should_不仅要付出努力，还要付出生产标准的物理过程？如果您认为我们其他人可以免费获得
，我希望您自愿承担费用。
如果您只想不付钱，为什么？其他人是否应该承担费用
的费用？
Who is it you think _should_ be paying for not just the effort but the
physical process of producing the standard? If you think it should be
free for the rest of us, I hope you are volunteering to bear the costs.
If you only want to not pay for it, why should others bear your part
of the costs?
这篇关于“草稿”的有效性如何？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
