From ducrot@helpe.inria.fr Tue Nov 30 18:10:33 1993 Received: from concorde.inria.fr by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA07542 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Tue, 30 Nov 1993 19:10:23 +0100 Received: from helpe.inria.fr by concorde.inria.fr; Tue, 30 Nov 1993 19:11:19 +0100 Received: from localhost.inria.fr by helpe.inria.fr; Tue, 30 Nov 1993 18:10:33 GMT Message-Id: <199311301810.AA10308@helpe.inria.fr> To: Chris Cartledge Cc: SC24 list , IST/31 , S.Price@sheffield.ac.uk Subject: Re: (SC24.56) IST/18 comments on NP on PREMO (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 Nov 93 17:54:20 +0100." <199311301720.AA06654@dkuug.dk> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 18:10:33 +0000 From: Andre.Ducrot@inria.fr X-Mts: smtp X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 I know that what I will say is quite provocative, but I think that is the problem. There are already too much things in the NP. The NP is a dead document as soon as it gets approved. There is no mecchanism within ISO to verify that the standard you are developping is in accordance with the NP which have been voted (I will say hopefully since the NP is generally 5 or 6 years old when the standard is published). The only way to insure that standards are compatible is via liaisons and participation of experts of various groups to the work. This has been used between CGM and SC18 quite efficiently as an example. I am pushing very high to get a suitable participation from SC29 (MHEG) in the next SC24 meeting. This is the way to insure that work is not duplicated. I think that if you try to resolve all technical issues in the NP, you will never have a standard. Another thing, first remember that this new vote is an unnecessary request from JTC1 secretariat (formally, there was enough support and participation to approve it). Don't worry, France was in the minority, but we have also to recognize the rights of the majority. Regards Andre Ducrot