Karl's little ditty was all about using terminology that supports our expectation of interoperability between different lighting products.
For example, if I as a consumer of lighting technology want to rent or buy a rig of gear, I'd be asking for trouble if I simply stated that everything needs to be
DMX compatible. I might receive products that use 3-pin
XLR's or even RJ45's instead of the mandated 5-pin
XLR. I could get products designed by audio experts, who often prefer using analog op-amps or comparators as
DMX receivers instead of the specified RS485 compliant digital devices. I might get products that have no signal common connection, or no opto-isolation. And I shouldn't be surprised if the installer uses whatever type of cable he has lying around the shop, and grounds all the shields because isn't that what you're supposed to do with shields?
At my company we've seen and continue to see all the above, and lots more, on a regular basis (all passed off as
DMX compatible), and we spend a lot of time and effort helping users sort out malfunctions or worse in their lighting rigs, caused by people who prefer to do things their own way instead of following some arbitrary "standard".
The
point Karl was trying to get across is that we have standards (developed at great trouble and expense I might add) to ensure that lighting systems work reliably and users don't get to pay the price for some manufacturers' ignorance or tendency to cut corners. Obviously it's no problem to say "run
DMX to that light", but in any kind of documentation we should use the correct terminology, e.g.
DMX512/1990 or DMX512-A (add the E1.11 2008 if you like), because it stipulates exactly what we're promising to deliver or expecting to receive.