Re: Translating the standard

On 3/13/2018 12:55 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> It is then a version of the matching standards from Canadian and
> French standard bodies. This does not make a big difference, except
> that those national standards (last editions in 2003) are not kept in
> sync with evolutions of the ISO/IEC standard. So it can be said that
> this was a version for the 2003 version of the ISO/IEC standard,
> supported and sponsored by some of their national members.

There is a way to transpose international standards to national
standards, but they then pick up a new designation, e.g. ANSI for US or
DIN for German or EN for European Norm.

A./
>
> 2018-03-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode
> <unicode_at_unicode.org <mailto:unicode_at_unicode.org>>:
>
> On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +0000, Michel Suignard wrote:
>>> Time to correct some facts.
>>> The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper.
>>> ...
>> Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got Andrew’s point, too.
> Correction: if a project is not carried out by SC2 (the proper
> ISO/IEC subcommittee) then it is not a "version" of the ISO/IEC
> standard.
>
> A./
>
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 13 2018 - 18:49:30 CDT