From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Mon Dec 15 2003 - 22:13:58 EST
Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote:
> One of the reasons why "national bodies" (the standardization
> organizations of the various countries that participate in the
> ISO framework) make longterm commitments to participation in
> the ISO standards is to ensure the *stability* of the standards
> that concern them.
The North Korean and Chinese national bodies have already made proposals
that violate both the letter and spirit of stability policies.
> With an ISO standard as important as 10646 in the docket, you can
> be assured that there will be continued U.S. national interest
> (among others) to ensure that continued stability in key points
> in the standard. As long as *anyone* is proposing changes to that
> key standard, it is unlikely that U.S. participation will drop off,
> even if Ken, Michael, Michel, Rick, and whoever else talk about
> stability on the Unicode list retire and pass on the torches to
> some younguns to take over.
I'm glad the U.S. national body will stay involved, but having to rely
on that does sound a bit like having to rely on enlightened statesmen,
doesn't it?
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 15 2003 - 23:06:24 EST