----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Everson" <everson@egt.ie>
To: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Article in Financial Times; Feb 7, 2001
> At 04:48 -0800 2001-02-08, J M Sykes quoted the FT:
>
> >The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has now agreed to give
> >standard meanings to these remaining codes.
>
> Which as everyone knows, is really the International Organization for
> Standardization (ISO).
Quite, but I've become so accustomed to these two errors over the years that
these days they only makes me wince a little.
I believe 'ISO' was a compromise whose acceptability was reinforced by the
dictionary meaning:
iso- comb. form.
1 Used in wds adopted f. Gk and in Eng. wds modelled on these, and as a
freely productive pref., mainly in scientific and technical use, w. the
sense `equal'.
Which must be one of the most cryptic dictionary entries I've seen in a
month or two!
Mike.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:18 EDT