From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 12 2008 - 00:43:38 CDT
Marion Gunn <mgunn at egt dot ie> wrote:
> Thank you for that comprehensive explication, Kenneth, which amounts
> to saying, if I understand you correctly, that it would have been more
> correct for me to say "ISO/IEC 10646 is an international standard
> published in at least two independent languages, but the corresponding
> Unicode standard is a commercial standard published only in US
> (Anglo-American) English", (which, I trust, better answers the query
> someone else raised concerning bilingualism in the matter of
> publishing standards).
I don't think it amounts to that at all.
Marion's second version corrects the error of projecting the
bilingualism of ISO/IEC 10646 onto all ISO standards, but does nothing
to address the misleading pseudo-contrast between "international
standard" and "commercial standard" -- as though a standard promulgated
by an industry consortium cannot be international in nature.
Additionally, if it is really necessary to point out that the Unicode
Standard is written in "US (Anglo-American) English," I don't see why
the shorter but equivalent term "US English" wouldn't be preferable.
-- Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 00:47:39 CDT