Does the USB type C header not have a standard?

[NonStandardUser]

I've only noticed this recently while searching for my personal project: The motherboard header interface for USB type C front panel does not seem to have a standard defining its name and wiring, somehow? 

 

USB 3.0(type A) front panel header seems to have a standard per this document that Intel provides.

 

USB type C header, on the other hand, seems to be:

•  animously refered to as USB type E or key A 
•  does not have any technical descriptions, even from USB-IF
•  and even has user claims that implies the wirings for these interfaces are not standardized across hardware(mobo) vendors.

It makes no sense for this header to not be unified and standardized; yet I can't find a clear documentation as to its specification. Can someone point me to where I might find it?

[Chris Pratt]

It is and it isn't. It's officially part of the USB standard, but it's also not specific to USB. Thunderbolt, as one example, also uses Type C connectors. Theoretically, it could be used for something else entirely as well. The connector itself is standardized in the sense of shape l, size, number of pins, etc., but the actual functionality is fungible. For example, Apple could end up switching over to Type C, but use a completely custom pin out that wouldn't actually be compatible with other Type C devices/charges/etc. Wouldn't be the first time they've done something like that.

[NonStandardUser]

I would at least appreciate an explicit documentation for the header when in use for USB 3.2 type C and yet, I can't find it. If it is(and I do believe it has to be) really a part of the USB standard, why is it not technically described in any of USB-IF's docs?

 

Also, just a separate question: Do you think this header form factor will also stand for USB4(thunderbolt 3)?

[NonStandardUser]

46 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

It is and it isn't. It's officially part of the USB standard, but it's also not specific to USB. Thunderbolt, as one example, also uses Type C connectors. Theoretically, it could be used for something else entirely as well. The connector itself is standardized in the sense of shape l, size, number of pins, etc., but the actual functionality is fungible. For example, Apple could end up switching over to Type C, but use a completely custom pin out that wouldn't actually be compatible with other Type C devices/charges/etc. Wouldn't be the first time they've done something like that.

Wait, were you talking about the type C connectors? I'm confused because you mentioned

Quote

shape I

and I thought you were talking about the header but reading your reply I'm convinced you were talking about the type c connector itself... 

[Chris Pratt]

35 minutes ago, NonStandardUser said:

Wait, were you talking about the type C connectors? I'm confused because you mentioned

and I thought you were talking about the header but reading your reply I'm convinced you were talking about the type c connector itself... 

Oh. Geez. You're right. I totally missed "header" in your question. Yeah. That I'm not sure about. It might actually not be standardized. Nevermind.