[dghf]

> https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4180.txt is very clear about what CSV files are supposed to look like

Mm, not really. By its own admission, it is descriptive, not prescriptive:

> This section documents the format that seems to be followed by most implementations

And it came out in 2005, by which date CSVs had already been in use for some twenty or thirty years.

[usrbinbash]

It doesn't matter when it came out, it doesn't matter that it it descriptive. It is the standard, period.

Yes, CSV is much, much older. In fact it predates personal computers. And it went through changes. Again: None of that matters. We have a standard, we should use the standard, and systems should demand the standard.

Standards are meant to ensure minimal-friction interoperability. If systems don't enforce standards, then there is no point in having a standard in the first place.

[jhbadger]

Yes, but you could argue that web browsers shouldn't accept broken HTML either. But they do, and that's why there are so much broken HTML out there in the wild. Same with broken CSV -- basically people's measure is "if Excel can read it correctly, it's fine" even if not every CSV library in every programming language can.

[tttp]

"This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."

[teddyh]

Note the qualifier: “not an Internet standard” (my emphasis).

[usrbinbash]

And again: None of that matters. I am not talking about formalities here, I am talking about technical realities.

Whether it is formally called a standard or no doesn't change the fact that this is the document everyone points at when determining what CSV is and is supposed to look like. So it is de-facto a standard. Call it a "quasi standard" if that makes you happy.

[teddyh]

Oh no; I agree with you completely. I just wanted to point out that the document does not disclaim being a “standard”, is just says that it is not an “Internet standard”.

[usrbinbash]

My mistake, in that case, thank you :-)