From: John Cowan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Nov 27 2004 - 00:29:06 CST
Peter Kirk scripsit:
> I don't want to go along with Philippe entirely on this, but surely he
> must be right on this last point. Formally, Unicode is effectively the
> agent of just one national body in this decision-making process.
The Unicode Consortium is not an agent of the USNB, although it is
a U.S. corporation. It is itself an international organization, even
having some governmental bodies as members (agenciess of the Indian and
Pakistani national governments and the Tamil Nadu state government),
one intergovernmental organization, one international non-governmental
organization, and at least a dozen non-U.S. corporations.
> But formally these other bodies do have the right to
> outvote Unicode, and in effect to force Unicode to reverse its decisions
> - or else to reverse its policy of maintaining compatibility.
Formally, yes. However, by acts of self-abnegation, WG2 has a fixed
policy of not overriding the UTC or vice versa.
> Here in Europe it does not go down well when US bodies claim the right
> to make decisions for the whole world,
It's a mistake to think of the Consortium as a U.S. body.
-- Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes: John Cowan "I admire him, I freely admit it, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and when his time comes I shall http://www.reutershealth.com buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake." email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 27 2004 - 00:31:15 CST