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 1995-03-27, and formally issued from ISO/CS
1995-03-03, 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