On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 07:17:31PM +0100, Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
> 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)".
Well, the issue of normativeness have been extensivly debated
on the WG20 list, so you shold know better than what you wrote
above. TR type 1 is normative in nature and maay have normative
parts. The standard did not fail in ISO terms but WG20 decided
to turn it into a TR. 14652 may have succeded an FDIS vote,
but it has never been put to one. There have been many changes
to the document that I did not agree to, but anyway it is there now.
Kind regards
Keld
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
