DIN or RCA phono plug--which is 'better'?

Jonathan whatever the cause, please don't blame the internet -- the SME factory has been calling them DIN plugs since 1990 (and probably before):

"The high quality linear crystal oxygen-free copper audio lead selected for its electrical and mechanical characteristics is terminated at one end with SME right-angle 5-pole DIN contra-plug and gold-plated phono plugs at the other."

One would think that in over 16 years, someone would have called them on it, no? Seems weird to me. Also (checking Google) there is no shortage of both manufacturers and distributors of this item who are gleefully referring to it the same way as SME. Surely the DIN people would have made them cease and desist by now, if it were untrue. Are we talking about the same thing?
.

Psych -- from another thread:

The DIN either does or doesn't come with your tonearm, which is pretty much the only place you find them in audio these days (except certain specialty umbilical cords.)

So if your tonearm requires a DIN connector,it seems like it'd be hard to avoid using it. I like DIN because I believe they have better energy transfer than RCA and that becomes important where tiny phono cartridge signals are involved. The shielding is better too.

I wouldn't let it be a factor in choosing a tonearm though.

Clean the female side first by plugging/unplugging a cleaned male side with a little solution on it. Then wipe off the male side with a Q-tip before making the final connection.
.

Jonathan, if the TA connectors we're used to seeing on SME's for instance, aren't real DINs, then what does DIN stand for in that instance, or is it a misuse of the term?
Thanks

Jonathan, thanks for your explanation. I know it's a drag to repeat things you've explained before; I do it when I have time, especially if I sense the person asking is really curious, whatever their reason. If you wanted to save time, you could have just referred me to your post on AA (which I found by myself;--) I wasn't arguing with you, just curious about something that I always assumed. And so have many others I bet, even including the person who posted this thread. So if you say those assumptions are untrue, I'm naturally curious.

Sorry to take you away from your other duties, but if you're going to post in these forums, you will find that there are many who wish to be informed beyond accepting simple pronouncements. Additionally, your remark held special interest for me beyond audio, as I'm otherwise concerned with tracking the increasing misuse (to put it mildly!) of intellectual property, international patents, copyrights, etc. So this seemed to me worth looking into for reasons other than idle curiosity, -- not that I think there need be any justification for the pursuit of knowledge.

BTW, I have made my own TA cable sets, using Tiffany "DIN" connectors (or whatever they are) and I'm pretty sure van den Hul makes up the TA sets for SME (at least the IV and the V arms) but vdH only refers to them in their catalog as "tonearm connectors", while Clearaudio and Cardas both call theirs DIN. My other experiences tell me the DIN organization DOES MIND the misuse of their mark (even if you don't) but as long as it doesn't expose them to liability, it's probably too limited an issue for them to try and fix.

On one hand, I'm sure Kimberly-Clark is delighted that most people refer to all facial tissue as "Kleenex." On the other hand, I'll bet that you (and a lot of other innovative cartridge designers) would be very angry if everyone referred to any MC cartridge as an "Ortophon" ;--)
.