From: Erkki I. Kolehmainen (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 07 2010 - 01:34:42 CST
Still OT: I'd go as far as stating that there are a number of approved
standards and work items that serve no useful purpose. In some instances
there is a very small group of activists that has simply worn out the
opposition. Rejected proposals have even been repeatedly moved from one
technical committee to another in search for a more welcoming home.
Most standards and projects are highly beneficial, though.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of Asmus Freytag
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 3:40 AM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: Mahesh T. Pai; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Latin-script keyboard layout (was RE: Quick Question About
Korean Input Methods)
On 1/6/2010 8:56 AM, Peter Constable wrote:
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> On Behalf Of Mahesh T. Pai
>> Slightly OT for the thread, but...
>> What is the purpose of a standard if it is not to be supported??
> Still off topic: Not a comment on ISO 9995 but in general: the fact
> that something has been made a standard does not imply that anybody in
> particular has to support it. It makes sense for a product to support
> a particular standard if in doing so business goals are met.
And, despite many well-crafted and successful standards, the mere fact
that something has passed the formalities required to be called a
standard, doesn't by itself guarantee that it represents an appropriate
or superior technical solution to a problem.
Just the kind of humbling thought that should not be forgotten in a
community engaged in standardization efforts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 07 2010 - 01:38:05 CST