> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Brady [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 1:30 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Standards (Re: Arabic in fixed width fonts)
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
>
> > 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**.
>
> Could this debate be taken elsewhere. Perhaps there is a
> random-standards-pedantry list?
Pedantry or not, it really comes down to whether WG20, SC22,
or ISO recommends 14652 to be implemented or not. The current
recommendation is (really) that 14652 is **not** of such a
quality that implementation is recommended. Which does, of
course, not forbid anyone to waste their time implementing it.
But WG20 as a whole finds it to be something that should NOT
be implemented, due to lack of quality.
Kind regards
/kent k
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
