SGML: DSSSL Voting 1995

Path: msunews!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!news.kth.se!nac.no!ifi.uio.no!gyda.ifi.uio.no!enag
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Newsgroups: comp.text.sgml
Subject: DSSSL: summary of voting
Date: 10 May 1995 23:42:03 UT
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 2295 0313
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <19950510T234203Z.enag@naggum.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gyda.ifi.uio.no
distribution of ISO documents being what it is, I didn't get this until now
even though it was dated 1995年03月27日, and formally issued from ISO/CS
1995年03月03日, but this is the summary of votes on ISO/IEC DIS 10179.2 DSSSL:
 Australia abstain
 Austria approve
 Belgium abstain
 Brazil -
 Bulgaria -
 Canada approve
 China approve
 Czech Republic approve
 Denmark approve
 Egypt approve
 Finland approve
 France approve
 Germany disapprove
 Hungary approve
 Ireland approve
 Italy approve
 Japan approve
 Korea, Rep of approve
 Mongolia approve
 Morocco -
 Netherlands approve
 New Zealand approve
 Norway approve
 Romania approve
 Russian Fed approve
 Slovenia abstain
 Sweden approve
 Switzerland approve
 Turkey approve
 Ukraine approve
 United Kingdom approve
 USA approve
approved with 20/21 >= 2/3 approval and 1/25 <= 1/4 disapproval.
the German comments include such statements as "without an index the text
is almost unreadable", said of the clearest-written ISO standard in years,
completely ignoring the fact that most ISO standards are published without
indexes, especially some _humongous_ standards for which the German
contingent readily accepts literally anything. another gem is this: "The
presentation of the technical content is in a very poor state which makes a
thorough review of the specification almost impossible and, in particular,
this sort of text does not qualify as an International Standard." I think
we should all be very happy that for once there is a standard that does
_not_ meet German quality standards for International Standards. the other
countries that have commented have all made technical and well founded
comments, clearly invalidating any claim to unreadability.
good work! we're all eagerly anticipating publication.
#<Erik>
--
sufficiently advanced political correctness is indistinguishable from sarcasm