Re: No Subject

From: Erkki Kolehmainen (
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 02:34:15 CDT

  • Next message: Richard Wordingham: "Re: Demystifying the Politburo (was: Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!))"

    Since the wording indicates that there may be a misunderstanding, I'd
    like to point out that ISO is not an organization of national
    governments. Its members are called National Bodies, and they are
    typically widely-based non-profit organizations with some kind of a
    formal national recognition and possibly some financial support by the
    government (e.g. in Finland by the Ministry of Trade and Industry),
    although there are instances where they are essentially government
    bodies. Actual participation in ISO activities may be sponsored by
    individual companies and/or national industrial or trade organizations
    or government bodies (e.g. in Finland, a major sponsor for the cultural
    diversity issues in ICT is the Research Institute for the Languages of
    Finland under the Ministry of Education).

    Sincerely, Erkki I. Kolehmainen

    Sinnathurai Srivas wrote:

    > Dean Synder wrote,
    > It could, however, change rather quickly if several
    >> international stake-holders simply paid for full membership in the
    >> Unicode Consortium and also became involved in the ISO 10646 efforts
    >> through their national standards bodies. Basically this would take
    >> money, expertise, and time. Given those ingredients, however, you could
    >> effect real change.
    > What about a language that has no Government to tame the ISO?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 02:35:17 CDT