Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote: > One of the reasons why "national bodies" (the standardization > organizations of the various countries that participate in the > ISO framework) make longterm commitments to participation in > the ISO standards is to ensure the *stability* of the standards > that concern them.
The North Korean and Chinese national bodies have already made proposals that violate both the letter and spirit of stability policies. > With an ISO standard as important as 10646 in the docket, you can > be assured that there will be continued U.S. national interest > (among others) to ensure that continued stability in key points > in the standard. As long as *anyone* is proposing changes to that > key standard, it is unlikely that U.S. participation will drop off, > even if Ken, Michael, Michel, Rick, and whoever else talk about > stability on the Unicode list retire and pass on the torches to > some younguns to take over. I'm glad the U.S. national body will stay involved, but having to rely on that does sound a bit like having to rely on enlightened statesmen, doesn't it? -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
