On 3/13/2018 12:55 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
It is then a version of the matching standards from Canadian and French standard bodies. This does not make a big difference, except that those national standards (last editions in 2003) are not kept in sync with evolutions of the ISO/IEC standard. So it can be said that this was a version for the 2003 version of the ISO/IEC standard, supported and sponsored by some of their national members.
There is a way to transpose international standards to national standards, but they then pick up a new designation, e.g. ANSI for US or DIN for German or EN for European Norm.
A./
2018-03-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org <mailto:unicode@unicode.org>>:On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +0000, Michel Suignard wrote:Time to correct some facts. The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper. ...Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got Andrew’s point, too.Correction: if a project is not carried out by SC2 (the proper ISO/IEC subcommittee) then it is not a "version" of the ISO/IEC standard. A./
