Talk:IEEE 1541-2002

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Measurement (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

So does IEEE 1541-2002 conflict with IEEE 100-2000 or does it supersede it? — Omegatron 01:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer Omegatron's question directly, but can offer the following relevant text (from IEEE Std 260.1-2004)

"When a document is more than five years old and has not been reaffirmed, it is reasonable to conclude that its contents, although still of some value, do not wholly reflect the present state of the art."

Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE 260.1-2004 also includes the following definitions

1 B (byte) = "a string of bits, usually eight bits long, operated on as a unit"
1 o (octet) = "a string of eight bits, operated on as a unit"
1 kB = 1000 B
1 MB = 1000 kB
1 GB = 1000 MB
1 KiB = 1024 B
1 MiB = 1024 KiB
1 GiB = 1024 MiB

Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on IEEE 1541-2002. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Acceptance"[edit]

This entire section gives undue weight to the notion that this standard has seen any adoption whatsoever, while ignoring that the vast majority of sources (especially in marketing materials, technical documents, news reports, and so on) still use the prefixes as they were prior to this standard. If I get time I may remove that section and replace it with one that more fairly represents how little adoption the standard has seen in nearly two decades. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]