(although innumerable attempts were made to imitate him) and it can be argued that in all of English literature, his creativity is rivaled only by Shakespeare’s. He was an enormously complex man, a fact seen by many of the important literary figures of his day who were acquainted with him. Ralph Waldo Emerson attended one of Dickens’s public readings in Boston during Dickens’s American tour. Emerson laughed, he said, “as if he must crumble to pieces,” but afterward he commented that he was afraid that Dickens possessed

too much talent for his genius; it is a fearful locomotive to which he is bound and can never be free from it nor set to rest. . . . He daunts me! I have not the key.

Dickens’s genius, his obsession with work, his life-long love affair with his public, and his deep humanity all helped to make him a literary phenomenon. Because his works appealed to people of all conditions, and because he could take advantage of new technological developments, he reached, from the publication of the Pickwick Papers on, an audience of unprecedented size — an audience which he was able to influence emotionally to an extent never equalled. He was not merely a writer but also a public figure. He was, for example, widely regarded as the best after-dinner speaker, as well the best amateur actor, of his day, and during his own lifetime he became a mythic figure: when he died, a (perhaps apocryphal) little girl cried “Dickens dead? Then will Father Christmas die too?”

He was a great comic artist and a great entertainer, but his influence over his public was strongest, perhaps, when he struck a vein of sentiment which ran deep in Victorian society. Carlyle, quite seriously, recounted the “strange profane story” of a “solemn clergyman” who had called to comfort a sick man who was, perhaps, on his death-bed. As the clergyman left the room, having, as he thought, accomplished his task, he heard the invalid say “Well, thank God, Pickwick will be out in ten days anyway!”When The Old Curiosity Shop was approaching its emotional climax — the death of Little Nell — Dickens was inundated with letters imploring him to spare her, and felt, as he said, “the anguish unspeakable,” but proceeded with the artistically necessary event. Readers were desolated. The famous actor William Macready wrote in his diary that “I have never read printed words that gave me so much pain. . . . I could not weep for some time. Sensations, sufferings have returned to me, that are terrible to awaken.” Daniel O’Connell, the great Irish member of Parliament, read the account of Nell’s death while he was riding on a train, burst into tears, cried “He should not have killed her,” and threw the novel out of the window in despair. Even Carlyle, who had not previously succumbed to Dickens’s emotional manipulation, was overcome with grief, and crowds in New York awaited a vessel newly arriving from England with shouts of “Is Little Nell dead?” Tastes change, however: Oscar Wilde, that sardonic iconoclast, would later remark (though he might not, even in the saying, have believed it) that no one could read the death-scene of Little Nell without dissolving into tears — of laughter. Today, perhaps, we do not find it so mawkishly sentimental, but we cannot read it, obviously, as the Victorians did.

Charles Dickens was born on February 7, 1812, the son of John and Elizabeth Dickens. John Dickens was a clerk in the Naval Pay Office. He had a poor head for finances, and in 1824 found himself imprisoned for debt. His wife and children, with the exception of Charles, who was put to work at Warren’s Blacking Factory, joined him in the Marshalsea Prison. When the family finances were put at least partly to rights and his father was released, the twelve-year-old Dickens, already scarred psychologically by the experience, was further wounded by his mother’s insistence that he continue to work at the factory. His father, however, rescued him from that fate, and between 1824 and 1827 Dickens was a day pupil at a school in London. At fifteen, he found employment as an office boy at an attorney’s, while he studied shorthand at night. His brief stint at the Blacking Factory haunted him all of his life — he spoke of it only to his wife and to his closest friend, John Forster — but the dark secret became a source both of creative energy and of the preoccupation with the themes of alienation and betrayal which would emerge, most notably, in David Copperfield and in Great Expectations.

In 1829 he became a free-lance reporter at Doctor’s Commons Courts, and in 1830 he met and fell in love with Maria Beadnell, the daughter of a banker. By 1832 he had become a very successful shorthand reporter of Parliamentary debates in the House of Commons, and began work as a reporter for a newspaper.

In 1833 his relationship with Maria Beadnell ended, probably because her parents did not think him a good match (a not very flattering version of her would appear years later in Little Dorrit). In the same year his first published story appeared, and was followed, very shortly thereafter, by a number of other stories and sketches. In 1834, still a newspaper reporter, he adopted the soon to be famous pseudonym “Boz.” His impecunious father (who was the original of Mr. Micawber in David Copperfield, as Dickens’s mother was the original for the querulous Mrs. Nickleby) was once again arrested for debt, and Charles, much to his chagrin, was forced to come to his aid. Later in his life both of his parents (and his brothers) were frequently after him for money. In 1835 he met and became engaged to Catherine Hogarth.

The first series of Sketches by Boz was published in 1836, and that same year Dickens was hired to write short texts to accompany a series of humorous sporting illustrations by Robert Seymour, a popular artist. Seymour committed suicide after the second number, however, and under these peculiar circumstances Dickens altered the initial conception of The Pickwick Papers , which became a novel (illustrated by Hablot K. Browne, “Phiz,” whose association with Dickens would continue for many years). The Pickwick Papers continued in monthly parts through November 1837, and, to everyone’s surprise, it became an enormous popular success. Dickens proceeded to marry Catherine Hogarth on April 2, 1836, and during the same year he became editor of Bentley’s Miscellany, published (in December) the second series of Sketches by Boz, and met John Forster, who would become his closest friend and confidant as well as his first biographer.

After the success of Pickwick, Dickens embarked on a full-time career as a novelist, producing work of increasing complexity at an incredible rate, although he continued, as well, his journalistic and editorial activities. Oliver Twist was begun in 1837, and continued in monthly parts until April 1839. It was in 1837, too, that Catherine’s younger sister Mary, whom Dickens idolized, died. She too would appear, in various guises, in Dickens’s later fiction. A son, Charles, the first of ten children, was born in the same year.

Nicholas Nickleby got underway in 1838, and continued through October 1839, in which year Dickens resigned as editor of Bentley’s Miscellany. The first number of Master Humphrey’s Clock appeared in 1840, and The Old Curiosity Shop, begun in Master Humphrey, continued through February 1841, when Dickens commenced Barnaby Rudge, which continued through November of that year. In 1842 he embarked on a visit to Canada and the United States in which he advocated international copyright (unscrupulous American publishers, in particular, were pirating his works) and the abolition of slavery. His American Notes, which created a furor in America (he commented unfavorably, for one thing, on the apparently universal — and, so far as Dickens was concerned, highly distasteful — American predilection for chewing tobacco and spitting the juice), appeared in October of that year. Martin Chuzzlewit, part of which was set in a not very flatteringly portrayed America, was begun in 1843, and ran through July 1844. A Christmas Carol, the first of Dickens’s enormously successful Christmas books — each, though they grew progressively darker, intended as “a whimsical sort of masque intended to awaken loving and forbearing thoughts” — appeared in December 1844.

In that same year, Dickens and his family toured Italy, and were much abroad, in Italy, Switzerland, and France, until 1847. Dickens returned to London in December 1844, when The Chimes was published, and then went back to Italy, not to return to England until July of 1845. 1845 also brought the debut of Dickens’s amateur theatrical company, which would occupy a great deal of his time from then on. The Cricket and the Hearth, a third Christmas book, was published in December, and his Pictures From Italy appeared in 1846 in the “Daily News,” a paper which Dickens founded and of which, for a short time, he was the editor.

In 1847, in Switzerland, Dickens began Dombey and Son, which ran until April 1848. The Battle of Life appeared in December of that year. In 1848 Dickens also wrote an autobiographical fragment, directed and acted in a number of amateur theatricals, and published what would be his last Christmas book, The Haunted Man, in December. 1849 saw the birth of David Copperfield, which would run through November 1850. In that year, too, Dickens founded and installed himself as editor of the weekly Household Words, which would be succeeded, in 1859, by All the Year Round, which he edited until his death. 1851 found him at work on Bleak House, which appeared monthly from 1852 until September 1853.

In 1853 he toured Italy with Augustus Egg and Wilkie Collins, and gave, upon his return to England, the first of many public readings from his own works. Hard Times began to appear weekly in Household Words in 1854, and continued until August. Dickens’s family spent the summer and the fall in Boulogne. In 1855 they arrived in Paris in October, and Dickens began Little Dorrit, which continued in monthly parts until June 1857. In 1856 Dickens and Wilkie Collins collaborated on a play, The Frozen Deep, and Dickens purchased Gad’s Hill, an estate he had admired since childhood.

The Dickens family spent the summer of 1857 at a renovated Gad’s Hill. Hans Christian Anderson, whose fairy tales Dickens admired greatly, visited them there and quickly wore out his welcome. Dickens’s theatrical company performed The Frozen Deep for the Queen, and when a young actress named Ellen Ternan joined the cast in August, Dickens fell in love with her. In 1858, in London, Dickens undertook his first public readings for pay, and quarreled with his old friend and rival, the great novelist Thackeray. More importantly, it was in that year that, after a long period of difficulties, he separated from his wife. They had been for many years “tempermentally unsuited” to each other. Dickens, charming and brilliant though he was, was also fundamentally insecure emotionally, and must have been extraordinarily difficult to live with.

In 1859 his London readings continued, and he began a new weekly, All the Year Round. The first installment of A Tale of Two Cities appeared in the opening number, and the novel continued through November. By 1860, the Dickens family had taken up residence at Gad’s Hill. Dickens, during a period of retrospection, burned many personal letters, and re-read his own David Copperfield, the most autobiographical of his novels, before beginning Great Expectations, which appeared weekly until August 1861.

1861 found Dickens embarking upon another series of public readings in London, readings which would continue through the next year. In 1863, he did public readings both in Paris and London, and reconciled with Thackeray just before the latter’s death. Our Mutual Friend was begun in 1864, and appeared monthly until November 1865. Dickens was in poor health, due largely to consistent overwork.

In 1865, an incident occurred which disturbed Dickens greatly, both psychologically and physically: Dickens and Ellen Ternan, returning from a Paris holiday, were badly shaken up in a railway accident in which a number of people were injured.

1866 brought another series of public readings, this time in various locations in England and Scotland, and still more public readings, in England and Ireland, were undertaken in 1867. Dickens was now really unwell but carried on, compulsively, against his doctor’s advice. Late in the year he embarked on an American reading tour, which continued into 1868. Dickens’s health was worsening, but he took over still another physically and mentally exhausting task, editorial duties at All the Year Round.

During 1869, his readings continued, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, until at last he collapsed, showing symptoms of mild stroke. Further provincial readings were cancelled, but he began upon The Mystery of Edwin Drood.

Dickens’s final public readings took place in London in 1870. He suffered another stroke on June 8 at Gad’s Hill, after a full day’s work on Edwin Drood, and died the next day. He was buried at Westminster Abbey on June 14, and the last episode of the unfinished Mystery of Edwin Drood appeared in September.

Londres (Grande Bretagne) – du 1er mai au 11 octobre 1851

The Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations

Première véritable Exposition Universelle et Internationale, elle présente à la fois un caractère modeste et grandiose. En une seule construction occupant à peine 19 acres, elle a accueilli plus de 6 millions de visiteurs, abrité plus de 13,937 exposants. Modeste parce qu’elle occupait un espace restreint (et un seul bâtiment), grandiose parce qu’il s’agit d’un événement unique en 1851.

L’Exposition se tenait au Palais de Cristal, un bâtiment immense, conçu expressément pour l’événement. L’architecture du palais rompait avec les habitudes de l’architecture Victorienne. Il s’agissait d’un palais de verre et d’acier dont la légèreté avait de quoi étonner à cette époque, et dont les Londoniens étaient fiers. L’architecte responsable était Joseph Paxton. L’utilisation de pièces usinées (plaques de verre, poutres d’acier) donne au bâtiment le ton juste pour une exposition de ce type à cette époque. L’emplacement choisi: Hyde Park. Au lendemain de l’événement, le Palais fut défait pour être reconstruit à Sydenham où il réouvrit en 1854. Le bâtiment fut détruit en 1936 lors d’un incendie.

Consacrée aux progrès accomplis par l’Homme du XIXe siècle, l’Exposition permettait de voir l’ancien (Gallerie Médiévale) cotoyer le moderne (Chambre de Machines), la richesse et l’exotisme (le fameux diamant Koh-i-noor, fourures et artisanat amérindien du Canada, un gigantesque éléphant de plâtre et des etoffes de l’Inde (Cachemire), chapeaux d’Australie, etc. Les nombreux exposants étaient surtout Britaniques ou des Colonies Britaniques. L’Exposition avait un caractère colonial davantage qu’international ce qui n’est rien de vraiment étonnant pour l’Angleterre Victorienne.

Quelques critiques virent dans cette manifestation un symbole de la décadence impérialiste, mais dans l’ensemble les gens y virent un véhicule d’espoir dans l’évolution de la civilisation. D’ailleurs, sans trop le vouloir, cette Exposition fut à l’origine de maints accords Européens et Internationaux.

L’exposition fut un succès à bien des égards. Du point de vue économique, l’exposition fit un profit de 186, 437 livres. Il n’en fallait pas plus pour que d’autres expositions se préparent. Quant aux profits, ils furent réinvestis dans les musées de South Kensington.

Les Expositions Universelles ont toujours été un miroir de l’Histoire, une image concentrée de l’idéal d’une société. On peut voir en chacune d’elles une source de repères historiques sur divers plans: sociologique, psychologique, culturel, architectural, politique, social, esthétique, pratique, scientifique, etc. La foire – au sens très large – est avant tout un lieu de rencontre et d’échange. Or aujourd’hui les échanges sont de plus en plus faciles, et le texte que vous lisez présentement en est une illustration très claire. Autrefois, les expositions et foires de tous types étaient des occasions, attendues ou inattendues, de prendre des nouvelles du monde. Les plus grandes inventions, la roue mise à part, ont été présentées lors d’Expositions: Le téléphone de Graham Bell fut une attraction de l’Exposition de Philadelphie (1876), la Grande Roue (Ferris Wheel) fut inventée pour l’Exposition Colombienne de Chicago (1893), la télévision fut présentée en 1939 lors de l’Exposition de New York, sans compter de nombreuses inventions qui ne sont jamais parvenues à la diffusion de masse, mais qui étaient sensées changer le monde du demain d’hier. Par exemple, le Visuophone de BELL, que j’ai pu voir en action pendant l’Expo 67 et qui n’a jamais été vraiment commercialisé. Les inventions sont aujourd’hui largement diffusées par les média électroniques ou imprimés à une vitesse qui fait qu’elles sont presque familières au moment ou nous les installons chez-nous. Pour un visiteur d’Exposition du XIXe siècle, il fallait plusieurs jours pour se rendre à une exposition qui était présentée dans son propre pays. Aujourd’hui il faut quelques heures ou quelques minutes pour changer de continent. Pendant la première moitié du XXe siècle, pour avoir accès à une nouvelle technologie, il fallait attendre des années pour la voir et encore plus pour l’utiliser. Aujourd’hui, on peut raisonnablement penser que les découvertes qui attireront les visiteurs d’une exposition qui se tiendra dans 3 ans ne sont pas encore faites ! Notre rapport avec le temps et la distance a beaucoup évolué. Les coûts rattachés aux Expositions Internationales sont devenus prohibitifs, qu’il s’agisse de la construction de pavillons, de la publicité ou simplement du coût d’entrée. Aujourd’hui, les pays prennent en considération sans doute davantage les revenus des expositions que le prestige simple. En ce sens, nous sommes loin de la compétition entre les grandes puissances du XIXe siècle.

Références

Aimone, L., Olmo, C. Les Expositions Universelles 1851-1900. Paris: Éditions Belin 1993.

Appelbaum, S. The Chicago World’s Fair of 1893. New York: Dover Publications, 1980.

http://netrover.com/~berta/pagexpo.html

Dans le cadre impérial, le Canada a comme les autres colonies une fonction précise : fournir la métropole en matières premières et constituer un marché pour ses produits manifacturés. Le poisson, la fourrure, le bois et le blé ont été successivement ou simultanément les grands produits d’exportation du Canada et une base essentielle de son économie.

À l’époque de la Confédéation, la situation évolue. Le pays s’est peuplé et l’économie s’est diversifiée. L’assouplissement des contraintes politiques et économiques au sein de l’empire britannique permetun certain dévélopement autochtone. Les liens économiques avec les États-Unis prennent de plus en plus d’importance par rapport à ceaux qui existent avec La Grande-Bretagne. Ces changements sont lents et, bien des égards, l’économie canadienne reste une economie de type colonial.

Référances :

Histoire du Québec contemporain. De la Confédération à la crise (1867-1929), Linteau; Durocher; Robert; 1989, Boréal compact.

http://www.eng.ucalgary.ca/awards/2002/Morrall-SandfordFlemming.htm

The same as invention and technology, standards follow an evolutionary path. Multiple standards are created and over time winnowed down to the most desirable and culturally acceptable standards that codify the technical requirements developed during the preceding wave. Future waves build upon the previous technical work, by reference to the standards. Standards developed during one wave thus become the foundation upon which the technologies for the next wave are built. Each of the great waves of society can be identified in a related wave of standards.

Unit and Reference Standards

The first wave of civilization, the agrarian wave, begat the need to define units of weight and measure as early as 3500 BC. The definitions of such unit standards were kept by a primary authority, such as the king or temple by 3000 BC. Centuries later, after a long expansion of similar but different unit and reference standards in each geographic area, the various different national and regional unit standards began coalescing into the metric system . Originally the king’s forearm became the length of a cubit. The king’s foot, the length of a foot measure. Unless of royal birth, there was little room for innovation with unit standards. In fact, unit standards gain in value to society as a whole when more people use the same standard: a concept economists describe as increasing “externalities”. So the gain in the value of unit standards is inversely proportional to the variation (or innovation) allowed.

While unit standards can certainly be shown to inhibit innovation of additional unit standards, unit standards were a significant factor in the development of early civilization. Taxation is a more reliable form of income than tribute. Unit standards provided the weights and measures used for taxation and therefore assisted in the rise of the first great city states of Babylon and Egypt.

The early history of unit standards shows that unit standards usually inhibit invention of redundant unit standards but do assist in the development of more complex societies.

Similarity and Methodology Standards

The next strata of standards is similarity standards. Similarity standards define common properties. While unit standards may define the carrying capacity of a barrel, similarity standards define how similar (construction) one barrel is to the next. Making each barrel similar offers significant economic advantage in manufacturing as well as distribution and selling. Similarity standards codify the second great wave of civilization, the industrial revolution. Initially similarity standards were only private standards. The barons of the emerging 18th century industrial age were supportive of “standards” so long as they controlled them. They created rail systems of many different gauges so as to prevent the operation of their competitor’s trains on their right-of-way (tracks).

In the early 19th century, the growing use of mechanized process instigated the powerful concept of interchangeability. Interchangeability of parts was originally conceived for the rapid repair of guns after a battle. In the earliest systems interchangeability was possible only among the guns from one manufacturer. In this manner, interchangeability was privately controlled and competition was limited. Examples of private products with interchangable parts that preclude competition: guns, train track spacing, fire plug flanges, custom nuts and bolts. Given the technology of the period, these products with interchangable parts were made using custom jigs developed by each manufacturer. So different manufacturers using different custom jigs and inaccurate measuring systems could not successfully make interchangable parts for the same product.

By the mid 19th century, machine tools and measuring devices had progressed sufficiently that it was practical to create a drawing (specification) and machine parts to match. By using these specifications, multiple companies could manufacturer interchangable parts. These specifications were, in effect, early standards. During the same period, society realized the importance of having all train tracks or all nuts and bolts or fire plug flanges the same and the result was the beginnings of the systems for standardization in use today. Now even products that do not need any form of interchangeability have similarity requirements (public and private) for safety, usage, environment, shipping, etc.

The early history of similarity standards demonstrates that proprietary products with interchangable parts were a form of barrier to market entry, but did serve to increase a company’s profits. Converting proprietary products to public similarity standards allows others to compete and the public is better served.

Compatibility Standards

The third strata of standards is compatibility standards. Compatibility standards define a form of interworking. Interworking of dissimilar parts or systems is closely related to the interchangeability of similar parts and systems, but it is distinct. The plug and socket are not similar, but they can interwork (be locally compatible). All properly built plugs are also interchangable with each other. Properly written, a similarity standard for the plug could be compatible with a properly written similarity standard for a socket. But when the necessary aspects of both the plug and socket are described in one document – that is a compatibility standard.

Compatibility standards are fundamentally required for any form of communications. Possibly the first technical communications standard was a common number system. Communications systems, which implement compatibility standards, have developed as public systems (telegraph and telephone) as well as private systems (data communications systems). Given the sophistication of electronics and other complex communications technology, it is no longer practical to define compatibility using only separate similarity standards.

Telegraph and telephone companies, initially through invention and innovation and later via regulation as a public utility, maintained control of their standards and markets. Public utilities are often termed “natural” monopolies, because of the difficulty defining all of the standards required to support unbiased competition. In fact, the need for regulation of telegraph and telephone companies was an outgrowth of the need for public compatibility standards. Public utility systems represent another means to ensure that public standards are used for public good, not private gain. However, public utilities severely limit the inventor’s chance for private gain. The inventor has no means to compete with a public utility, so the avenue with the most potential for private gain, commercial enterprise, is thwarted. Even the gain from selling an invention to a public utility is very limited since with only one customer there is little room for negotiation. This loss of the inventor’s advantage appears to be responsible for the slow pace of innovation in public telephone and telegraph companies.

Public voice communications was recognized to be a public good (e.g., universal service) very early in its development. Public voice communications required a similarity of equipment and systems for compatibility Such compatibility was seen to force a monopoly, so governments decided to control the telephone and telegraph companies via a regulated monopoly (public utility). Data communications evolved through its development and use in large organizations and was not until recently recognized as a public good (e.g., the Internet). IBM pioneered data communications systems and developed many proprietary compatibility specifications (under the system Synchronous Network Architecture) but these, often technically superior private standards, have been obsoleted by the markets desire for public data communications compatibility standards as exemplified by the Internet. The history of private and public compatibility standards for communications identifies the importance of public compatibility standards.

There are two significant paths to public standards – government intervention (via regulations and public utilities) or consensus standardization. Public voice communications systems are evolving away from public control and moving toward commercial control, i.e., publicly available for a fee and privately funded. This trend is partially made possible through the use and acceptance of voluntary (consensus) public standards to define compatibility. The privatization of most major Public Telephone and Telegraph organizations is one indication of the growing acceptance of consensus standardization. Consensus based standardization does not in itself strike a balance between private motivation and public gain. One of the problems with voluntary consensus based public standards is how to accommodate patented invention in such standards. Currently, consensus-based standards organizations use a doctrine requiring that patent holders offer to license their inventions on “reasonable, fair and non-discriminatory” terms. This has the effect of reducing the maximum royalties that an inventor can receive but defining that the invention will be available to multiple developers.

The early history of compatibility standards demonstrates that private compatibility standards were a very significant barrier to competition. Initially public utilities were used as a means to prevent private communications market domination. More recently, consensus based standardization is being used to avoid creating public utilities yet prevent market domination. However, compatibility standards tend to reduce the means available to a communications systems inventor to gain a commercial advantage.

Etiquettes

The latest wave of change, the adaptive information wave, refers to the use of changeable programmable processors for all seven layers of communications. Programmable processors provide the means to implement basic communications yet allow proprietary communications technology. Once all communications functions are programmable and changeable, they can be adapted to support any new invention and still allow prior compatible operation. What is necessary is a simple protocol that shuttles back and forth between the communicating ends and negotiates which specific layer processes will be used for compatible operation. Such a “protocol of protocols” is termed etiquette.

The advent and wide spread use of digital signal processors (DSP, a specific form of microprocessor) to support the programmable operation of even the physical layer communications function of modulation (previously associated with fixed function circuit design) is the last step to making etiquettes practical. DSPs provide the programmable operation at the first (physical) OSI layer; programmable controllers and host software on ever faster hosts can provide programmable operation of the remaining six layers.

Etiquette standards create new ways to design, control and add value to communications systems. The concepts of etiquettes can also be applied to the local interfaces between software processes in a single system. However, in such local interfaces, the functions of etiquette are often integrated into the software processes, making the specific functions of etiquette more difficult to identify.

Examples of etiquettes used to negotiate with remote systems include the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) V.8 used by telephone modems to negotiate compatible operation with the remote modem. This is how older and newer telephone modems (e.g., V.34 and V.90) find a common way to communicate. In Group 3 facsimile, the negotiating protocol ITU T.30 is an etiquette that has also been very successfully extended (e.g., from 4800, to 9600, 14400 and 28800 bit/s) for over thirty years. In the IETF, draft RFC Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) is a new etiquette to negotiate multimedia communications.

Etiquettes between remote systems become desirable when programmable processors and changeable memory (new forms of technology) are available to support all of the OSI layers used for remote communications. With the introduction of such adaptive technology, a new wave of standards is emerging. As DSP become economically viable to support the physical layer of communications, it becomes practical to employ etiquettes to negotiate communications between systems. This negotiation can support all types of compatibility, and can also support proprietary “branded” enhancements.

A proper etiquette is a serial structure containing the etiquette revision level, negotiated parameters (what the etiquette is negotiating, usually which protocol, associated revision level and options), and proprietary enhancements. Etiquettes require a serial structure to ensure that revisions remain fully backward compatible. The proprietary enhancements section of the etiquette would include the legally controlled identifier (branded ID), market segmentation fields, and any proprietary enhancements (or a pointer to them). Adding new protocol identifiers to etiquettes allows the support of additional protocols without affecting the compatible operation of existing protocols. Over time, desirable proprietary enhancements may become standard and may be added to the standardized parameter sets. Ricoh, a Japanese facsimile machine manufacturer, offered proprietary higher speed facsimile to its corporate customers. Then, years later, similar higher speed operation to what they pioneered, was included in the G3 facsimile standard.

Keeping revisions fully backward compatible in very complex protocol stacks or software processes is impossible, because it is not possible to identify or test all the ramifications of a change. Thus changes to add features or fix “bugs” can result in more “bugs.” Since etiquettes can negotiate protocols (including different revisions), it is possible for an etiquette to negotiate the “best” protocol or revision for a specific application. The logic describing what is “best” would need to be previously uploaded to each of the communicating systems.

As companies develop unique communications features, they can add them to the proprietary enhancements field, as Ricoh did with higher speed facsimile. In this manner, companies can add value yet support compatible communications or interfaces. In the proprietary enhancements field, the use of a branded ID (SIP uses a reverse domain name) may provide a legal way to control the proprietary enhancement and therefore may represent a new form of intellectual property.

Such enhancements are not limited to allowing private inventions such as higher data rates or better compression. Etiquettes can also control market segments to increase profits by offering specific capabilities to specific market segments. For example, the banking industry may negotiate better encryption, the radiologist market may negotiate higher resolution or the wireless market may negotiate better error control. Market segmentation via the etiquette can also be applied to the sales channel, allowing individual dealers and distributors to automatically poll their specific customers’ equipment for usage billing (copier market), problem analysis, and maintenance support (automatic ordering of replacement parts).

http://www.csrstds.com/siit.html

La normalisation et les trains

With the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, the increased demand to transport goods from place to place led to advanced modes of transportation. The invention of the Railroad was a fast, economical and effective means of sending products cross-country. This feat was made possible by the standardization of the railroad gauge, which established the uniform distance between two rails on a track. Imagine the chaos and wasted time if a train starting out in New York had to be unloaded in St. Louis because the railroad tracks did not line up with the train’s wheels. Early train travel in America was hampered by this phenomenon.

During the Civil War the U.S. government recognized the military and economic advantages to having a standardized track gauge. The government worked with the railroads to promote use of the most common railroad gauge in the U.S. at the time which measured 4 feet, 8 ½ inches, a track size that originated in England. This gauge was mandated for use in the Transcontinental Railroad in 1864 and by 1886 had become the U.S. standard.

Resources:
Federal Railroad Administration,
an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
the Association of American Railroads and the
U.S. Dept. of Defense’s Defense Standardization Program Office

http://www.ansi.org/consumer_affairs/history_standards.aspx?menuid=5

What is a standart ?The word ‘standard’ is used frequently in everyday speech, most often in an imprecise descriptive manner: “That’s fairly standard for the time of year” or “standard English”. But as a published specification, a Standard has to have a very precise meaning. We believe the following definition best describes a contemporary Standard.

A Standard is a published document which sets out specifications and procedures designed to ensure that a material, product, method or service is fit for its purpose and consistently performs the way it was intended to.

So Standards are vehicles of communication for producers and users. They establish a common language, which defines quality and establishes safety criteria. Costs are lower if procedures are standardized; training is also simplified. And consumers accept products more readily when they can be judged on intrinsic merit.

In the English-speaking world, the process by which a Standard is developed is known as standardization. It is interesting that in French, the word used for what we describe as a Standard is a Norme, and the process is known as Normalisation. So another way of looking at technical standardization is as a process which normalizes a product, process or material.

History of standarts

Standards have been around a long time. Relics from ancient civilizations such as Babylon and early Egypt provide ample evidence that standardization was being used as far back as seven thousand years ago. The earliest Standards were the physical Standards for weights and measures. They provided a single reference point against which all other weights and measures in that society could be standardized. As trade and commerce developed, written documents evolved which set down mutually agreed Standards for products and services such as agriculture, ships, buildings, weapons and so on.

Initially, such Standards were unique documents, part of a single contract between supplier and the purchaser. Later, the concept of common Standards evolved, where the same Standard could be used across a range of transactions. This portability, offering a uniform set of criteria, is the basis of modern standardization. It uses common knowledge, common requirements, and common needs to avoid reinventing the wheel.

Standarts after the industrial revolution

After the rapid industrialization of the early nineteenth century, the general absence of national standardization caused huge inefficiencies. Lack of conformity was a major cost, and evidence of this is still around today in the number of different railway gauges that exist. After the Industrial Revolution, occupational injury also became a major issue. For example, explosions in boilers and pressure pipes were a terrifying reality. Workers rightly approached any nineteenth century machinery with a legitimate degree of fear. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), one of the first voluntary standardizing bodies, was established in 1880, at a time when, according to their records, over 50,000 fatalities a year were being caused by explosions in pressures systems on land and at sea.

http://www.sai-global.com/shop/script/fwrequest.asp?404;http://www.standards.com.au:80/STANDARDS/INFO/ALLABTSTNDRDS/ALLABTSTNDRDS.HTM#1

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_britannique

Its contents were intended to celebrate material progress and peaceful international competition. They ranged from massive steam hammers and locomotives to the exquisite artistry of the handicraft trades – not to mention a host of ingenious gadgets and ornaments of domestic clutter. All the world displayed its wares, but the majority were British.This dominance was both novel and brief. It was only half a century earlier that Britain had wrested European economic and political leadership from France, at a time when Europe itself lagged far behind Asia in manufacturing output. By 1901, however, the world’s industrial powerhouse was the USA, and Germany was challenging Britain for second place. But no country, even then, was as specialised as Britain in manufacturing: in 1901 under ten per cent of its labour force worked in agriculture and over 75 per cent of its wheat was imported (mostly from the USA and Russia). Food and industrial raw materials, sourced from around the globe, were paid for by exports of manufactures and, increasingly, services such as shipping, insurance and banking and income from overseas investment. Nor was any other country so urbanised: already in 1851 half the population inhabited a town or city; by 1901 three-quarters did so. Yet even in 1851 only a minority of workers was employed in ‘modern’ industry (engineering, chemicals and factory-based textiles). They were largely concentrated into a few regions in the English north and Midlands, South Wales and the central belt of Scotland – where industrialisation was evident by 1800.

The Great Exhibition of 1851
http://www.victorianstation.com/palace.html

The Victorian age was not one, not single, simple, or unified, only in part because Victoria’s reign lasted so long that it comprised several periods. Above all, it was an age of paradox and power. The Catholicism of the Oxford Movement, the Evangelical movement, the spread of the Broad Church, and the rise of Utilitarianism, socialism, Darwinism, and scientific Agnosticism, were all in their own ways characteristically Victorian; as were the prophetic writings of Carlyle and Ruskin, the criticism of Arnold, and the empirical prose of Darwin and Huxley; as were the fantasy of George MacDonald and the realism of George Eliot and George Bernard Shaw.

Church of Scotland split, 1843

At its General Assembly in Edinburgh in 1843, the Church of Scotland split when nearly 200 ministers marched out to gather in another hall and form the Free Church of Scotland. The new church included more than one third of all former Church of Scotland ministers.Guided by Thomas Chalmers as their first moderator, within two years the Free Church had built 500 new churches, as well as 712 schools by 1851. Many Scots believed the disruption to have been the most significant event of the nineteenth century, and its effects were felt in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The Victorian era brought huge changes to everyday life in Scotland. The advent of the railway shortened journey times and opened up areas of the country previously out of reach to most people, as taking holidays in the Highlands and the Trossachs became popular with those who could afford it. Leisure time was more freely available than it had ever been and many new pastimes evolved. Tea rooms were opened by the likes of Thomas Lipton in the 1870s and people found time to enjoy themselves in the newly opened music halls and pubs. The diet of the average citizen changed as refrigeration and faster delivery times made the transportation of food easier, and many of the staples which we now associate with a basic standard of living were introduced by the Victorian push to improve and reform.

Impact of the Railways

When Victoria came to the throne in 1837 very few railway lines had been opened in Scotland, and those which were operating were mainly for the benefit of industry, transporting coal and other raw materials between Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh. By the turn of the century, within one generation, nearly all of Scotland’s railways had been built, linking most major towns and many small villages, stretching from the Borders in the south to Thurso on north coast, and operating many lines which are shut and deemed unprofitable today. Journeys which had taken days prior to Victoria’s reign, when the fasted method of travel had been the horse-drawn carriage, were now completed in a matter of hours.The very earliest railways carried coal from mines to coastal harbours; these included the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway of 1772, which ran on wooden rails, and the Kilmarnock and Troon Railway of 1805. It wasn’t long before advances in engineering and the development of more efficient steam engines presented itself as an opportunity to the railway men of the early 19th century.In the 1842 the Edinburgh and Glasgow line opened and the popularity of the railways was becoming something of a sensation. A rivalry developed between two major companies, the Caledonian Company, which ran trains into Glasgow, and the North British Company which linked Edinburgh to Carlisle. The link to the English railway network opened in 1848. In an attempt to compete with the Caledonian Company’s dominance north of the River Tay, the North British Company made plans to open an east coast route by bridging both the Tay and the Forth. So started some of the biggest engineering projects in the world at the time.