I do not think you are correct.

D-subminiature connectors are codified by both IEC 60807-3 and MIL-DTL-24308K.

Neither IEC 60807-3 nor MIL-DTL-24308K "standardize" or "codify" D-subminiature connectors into DA/DB/DC/DE sizes.

Is there an actual standard referencing DA/DB/DC/DD/DE? It wasn't linked in the article.

I do not think there is, and I think that everyone claiming that DA/DB/DC/DD/DE is a "standard" is wrong.

After all, we 100% DEFINITELY want to be "correct". Words like "standard" have meaning.

It appears DA/DB/DC/DD/DE is just a trade practice started by Cannon. Maybe that's why the "standardized" and "codified" specifications refer to sizes 1 through 5 (or 6).

If we want the opinion of the ultimate arbiters of standardization, both Digikey and Mouser adhere to "the standard" by organizing shell sizes into IEC 60807-3 and MIL-DTL-24308K-compliant numerical sizes with letters in parentheses to denote that the letters ARE NOT a standard.

The most likely reason that DA-DE sizes are not in the standards is that DA-DE were once trademarks or otherwise proprietary designations created by Cannon. Indeed, practically the only consistent and quasi-official spec sheets that list the A-E sizes are published by ITT Cannon but even they reference the actual standards (e.g. "E Size 9 (MIL-DTL-24308 Size 1)").

I assert that DA-DE are proprietary designations created by Cannon (now ITT Cannon) and calling them a "standard" is incorrect, IN AN ENGINEERING CONTEXT.

In support of my position I have referenced both IEC 60807-3 and MIL-DTL-24308K and provided real-world examples from domain experts. I have also found pdfs for DIN 41652, CECC 75301-802 and referenced spec and marketing materials for Amphenol, Assmann, and Farnell/Newark and the only instances of a "standard" is when they list A-E sizes as an afterthought to aid people who are not following the actual standard to source standards-compliant parts (or ITT Cannon).

What is there, besides blog posts, to show that I am not correct?

edit: As a certified, triple-audited, ISO 9001-compliant weirdo, I am going to write up a nonconformity report, digitally sign it, print it out, manually sign it, then stamp it, then initial the stamp, then get it co-signed, stamped, and initialed, then scan it, then upload it into BMS, then print it out again, write the document control number on it, stamp and initial next to the document control number, have a second engineer stamp and initial it, and then hand it DIRECTLY to Quality if anyone ever refers to D-Sub connectors using non-standardized nomenclature ever again.

This is serious business and we are serious engineers here.

Besides the fact that you're clearly not taking this seriously, anyone can codify whatever they want, including Cannon. They invented them and wrote the spec, along with the nomenclature. If you want to use the names, use them correctly, otherwise use something else.