From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Nov 27 2007 - 15:14:52 CST
David Starner said:
> On Nov 27, 2007 1:07 PM, Andrew West <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > All ISO committees have their own n-numbers, so SC2 n-numbers are
> > different from SC2/WG2 n-numbers, which are different from SC2/WG2/IRG
> > n-numbers.
> > [...]
> > It's not rocket science.
> Funny that; it sounds a lot like the rocket science that crashed a
> probe on Mars because it couldn't decide between metric and imperial.
> Anyone else find it incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid to label a
> series of documents n1, n2 and so on, when you know that someone else
> is also labeling an overlapping set of documents n1, n2, and so?
> There's 26 letters of the English alphabet, so even if you have to use
> letter+number format, you can use a different letter.
This is veering really off-topic for the Unicode list.
If you want to rant about JTC 1 committee document numbering
conventions, please take it up with JTC 1:
By the way, JTC 1 currently has 18 active subcommittees and many, many
working groups and rapporteur groups. The chairs and convenors
of those subcommittees and other groups have been using this
document numbering convention of decades now -- so I doubt they
will be too moved by someone unfamiliar with their processes
calling their document numbering "mind-bogglingly stupid."
Oh, and I advise you to familiarize yourself with clause 8.2,
"Rules for Numbering of JTC 1 Working Documents", in the
ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 3.0, before
complaining further about document numbering for SC2 and
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 27 2007 - 15:16:10 CST