Although it has been a while since I was involved in the techy parts of EDI, I still remember getting implementation guides from trading partners that were so different you questioned what part of the standards were standard. We did some very creative things in the map and pre and post processing to get a customer the data they demanded.
When I started my career in EDI, I worked for Owens Corning and I remember dealing with CIDX, TDCC, and VICS "standards". Then I moved on to work for Alco Health Services (which is now AmerisourceBergen) and we used "standards" developed by NWDA, HIBCC, and UCS.
Although we use the term standard when referring to trading partner and industry specific X12 implementations, in reality, each of those groups developed an implementation guide, which is a subset of the X12 standards, based on that particular company or industry's needs and business practices.
I think when people hear the word standard, they envision something more rigid and strict, but the definition of standard is "a structure built for or serving as a base or support". By this definition, the X12 standards really are standard.
