> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keld J�rn Simonsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 07:17:31PM +0100, Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
> > No, it cannot have any normative parts as such. Unfortunately,
...
>
> 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.
The editor of the JTC1 Directives, Part 3 wrote (emphases are mine):
"Technical reports of type 1 or 2 can therefore be normative *for
the purposes of the standards that make reference to them*, although they
are **not considered to be normative documents in their own right**."
Keld, please do not pretend that informative documents are normative
just because you want them to be normative. This particular document
was demoted by WG20 **_just because_ it was deemed highly inappropriate
to have 14652 as normative**.
Kind regards
/kent k
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
