No, it cannot have any normative parts as such. Unfortunately,
it seems that along with allowing non-ISO standards as normative
references, also ISO TRs can be **referenced** normatively in whole
or part (from an ISO standard). It will then be "normative" from
the point of view of that other standard only, not by itself,
not even in parts. While I do agree that normative documents
from other *recognised* standardisation bodies than ISO, or
other *widely recognised* documents, should be allowed, allowing
just anything (like failed standards) to be normatively referenced
is a bad idea. In this case the standard failed for good reasons,
and should not be used as a standard by anyone, not even in parts.
In this case we have "Keld's report (only very slightly influenced
by others, despite valiant attempts)".
Kind regards
/kent k
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keld J�rn Simonsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 6:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Standards (Re: Arabic in fixed width fonts)
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 06:31:03PM +0100, Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
> >
> >
> > All together now: DTR 14652 is **NOT** going to be an
> > International Standard! It FAILED to become a standard due to
> > stong critisism (which the editor did not want to move on).
> > It was retargeted to be a Technical Report, and as such it
> > will be an informative, NOT a normative, document.
>
> You are right in that 14652 is not going to be an ISO
> International Standard, it is going to be an ISO Technical
> Report. This may still have normative parts.
>
> Kind regards
> Keld
> -
> Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
> Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
>
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
