Talk:Rainbow Books

Computing Low‑importance

	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.

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Alternate Meaning for Beige Book?[edit]

see http://www.federalreserve.gov/Fomc/BeigeBook/2003/ Dehbach 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge[edit]

The individual book articles are way too stubby. They should all be merged here. Comments? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 11:41Z

I do not see the need to merge blue book in: it is a disambiguation page with plenty on it. The mention of the CD standard on that page is comparatively recent, in fact. Most of the "[colour] book" articles are in fact "[colour] book (CD standard)". If you had stuck a "merge" tag onto a "blue book (CD standard)" page, I would understand, but to stick it onto the blue book article itself, which has plenty of meanings before CD standards are mentioned, surprises me.

I was even tempted to remove the merge tag, but I'll leave it there for a while so that other people have a chance to comment.

Telsa 18:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent on this one. One the one hand the articles are short enough to be combined into one, but on the other, the articles are about seperate books on seperate topics. Obviously, in the case of the blue book article, only the section on the standards would be affected. --Kerowyn 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "blue book" has many meanings. The "blue book" page is essentially a disambiguation. It would not be appropriate to merge it here. Accurizer 20:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a bit of intelligent merging is needed. The blue book page shouldn't be as it's a disambig page, but the others probably should. I'll do it in a few days if no one objects. Kcordina 12:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it would be better to expand these articles, so they aren't stubs anymore, but I'm not fussed.

I came here because I thought Yellow Book (CD-ROM standards) should, if it is kept, be moved to Yellow Book (CD-ROM standard) (or Yellow Book (book of CD-ROM standards)). It should probably just be CD not CD-ROM, too.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 04:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the red book article should by merged with anything it's probably Compact_disc. Basically these two articles cover the same topic. Emu42

I think it should be not merged Dudo85 14:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote no definitely; the individual "book" pages should remain separate, with this as a high-level quasi-"cagegory/list" page. I strongly prefer the granularity inherent in the concept of Wikilinks. --Notmicro 07:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment below copied from Talk:Red Book (audio CD standard) to correct location here (copied by H2g2bob 15:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think this is a bad idea. The Rainbow Books page has its own content, and serves as a nice index to the various Book pages (Red Book, Yellow Book, etc.). There is no reason to merge it in here, and doing so would undoubtedly cause a loss of information (contextual or otherwise) in the process. I am strongly against. --Kadin2048 18:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also against this merge myself, as the Red Book really needs it's own entry. CDDA redirects there, and the CDDA logo is in important way of determining whether CDs will play in some older CD players. It is of medium length, but could still have more added to it. I feel that merging it wouldn't do it justice. --H2g2bob 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category Title?[edit]

I would recommend that this category be called CD Specifications. I am an engineer who has worked in the CD manufacturing business for 19 years, and while I have heard the term "Rainbow Books", it is a very rarely used phrase. Try searching the Internet for any mention of it. It is common for people in the industry to refer to the Red Book, the Yellow Book, or the Orange Book specifications, and very rarely, the White Book or the Blue Book. It seems to me that as a category title, Rainbow Books is confusing. While the phrase should be mentioned, the title should be CD Specifications. Tvaughan1 13:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article and related articles should seriously be simplified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.244.242 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do the have ISDN's or other numbers by which they can be found in libraries etc.?[edit]

If these books have ISDNs, some kind of IEEE standard numbers, or whatever else might be of use in finding them in a (technical) library, please add this information. Thanks! -- 77.7.149.205 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to assume you meant ISBN. These were proprietary specifications so had no such thing. Some were later standardized under various organizations and thus do have some numbers (e.g., CD-DA, CD-ROM, etc.). Some just mostly died unstandardized (probably a good thing). 50.53.15.59 (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Book[edit]

CD-R (and I believe CD-RW discs) were around long before Orange Book was published. Orange Book, as far as I recall only introduced multisession recording and was published to support the Kodak Photo CD format. 86.135.169.81 (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Book[edit]

I see someone keeps setting the Yellow Book standard year to 1988 for reasons I do not understand. The Yellow Book standard was announced in 1983 and publically (as a licensee) available in 1985. The page for ISO 9660 also lists explicitly under its history that ISO was trying to standardise the Yellow Book under Z39.60 in 1985. So the base Yellow Book standard cannot be from 1988.

References:

Page 17 of this Dutch newspaper (Nieuwsblad van het Noorden) from 1983-11-23 documents Philips and Sony were working on the CD-ROM standard.

At Comdex 1985 Atari presented an encyclopedia application with a working CD-ROM setup.

In 1987 you could buy Microsoft Bookshelf on CD-ROM. As a consumer product this would be a hard sell if nothing had been standardised yet.

From the ECMA-130 standard published in July 1988:

The specification of the disk itself was contain in a document called “Yellow Book” issued by the Philips and Sony Companies for their licensees only. In Spring 1987 ECMA was asked to produce a standard reflecting the contents of the “Yellow Book” as the necessary complement to Standard ECMA-119.

From Proceedings of the 1996 Federal Depository Conference:

The Yellow Book followed in 1983 when the same people announced a modification that would allow for the storage of information along with or instead of music. CD-ROM read only memory had emerged.

From the 1990 Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications monograph "Interactive Technology":

This format, commonly called CD-ROM, was introduced in 1985 by Philips and Sony and follows the "Yellow Book" standard. [..] In 1988 the basic "Yellow Book" standard was extended to include specifications for storing audio, pictures and graphics. Developed jointly by Philips, Sony and MIcrosoft, the new standard is called CD-ROM-XA (extended architecture) [..]

ashemedai (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there seems to be a lot of confusion, both here and at the CD-ROM page. From that page and the references we have, it is clear that the ECMA-130 standard version of this specification was published in July 1988, and the ISO/IEC standard version of this specification was published in August 1989 (https://www.iso.org/standard/18144.html). So those are the clear dates for the standards themselves. The CD-ROM page also states, with references, that "Sony and Philips created the technical standard that defines the format of a CD-ROM in 1983,[5]" and that "The CD-ROM was announced in 1984[6] and introduced by Denon and Sony at the first Japanese COMDEX computer show in 1985.[7]" However, this page https://web.archive.org/web/20181017203432/https://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/Yellow-Book, used as a reference in the CD-ROM wiki page, clearly states that the Yellow Book was published in 1988.

My guess is that the confusion is between when the year the Yellow Book specification was finished, and the year it was standardized by ECMA. Probably the page I show above that shows 1988 as the Yellow Book publication date got confused with the ECMA standard publication date, and then it has been used as a reference aftwards. Your timeline makes more sense, and I have to think the Tech Target reference is simply wrong, in light of all these other references. Feel free to update this page to reflect the 1983 year with your references. I'll try updating the CD-ROM page with this clarification and references too. If further evidence arises, we can discuss it. Sega381 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and tried to fix this in both this page and the CD-ROM page, with the appropriate references. - Sega381 (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]