From: Erkki Kolehmainen (erkki.kolehmainen@kotus.fi)
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 02:34:15 CDT
Since the wording indicates that there may be a misunderstanding, I'd
like to point out that ISO is not an organization of national
governments. Its members are called National Bodies, and they are
typically widely-based non-profit organizations with some kind of a
formal national recognition and possibly some financial support by the
government (e.g. in Finland by the Ministry of Trade and Industry),
although there are instances where they are essentially government
bodies. Actual participation in ISO activities may be sponsored by
individual companies and/or national industrial or trade organizations
or government bodies (e.g. in Finland, a major sponsor for the cultural
diversity issues in ICT is the Research Institute for the Languages of
Finland under the Ministry of Education).
Sincerely, Erkki I. Kolehmainen
Sinnathurai Srivas wrote:
> Dean Synder wrote,
>
> It could, however, change rather quickly if several
>
>> international stake-holders simply paid for full membership in the
>> Unicode Consortium and also became involved in the ISO 10646 efforts
>> through their national standards bodies. Basically this would take
>> money, expertise, and time. Given those ingredients, however, you could
>> effect real change.
>>
>
> What about a language that has no Government to tame the ISO?
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 02:35:17 CDT