From alb@sct.gouv.qc.ca Fri Nov 22 15:38:19 1996 Received: from ratatosk.DK.net (root@ratatosk.DK.net [193.88.44.22]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA00250 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:38:15 +0100 Received: from socrate.riq.qc.ca (socrate.riq.qc.ca [199.84.128.1]) by ratatosk.DK.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA00785 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:11:58 +0100 Received: from 506.sct.gouv.qc.ca (riq-44-160.riq.qc.ca) by socrate.riq.qc.ca (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA11273; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:07:29 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:07:28 -0500 Message-Id: <9611221407.AA11273@socrate.riq.qc.ca> X-Sender: alb@riq.qc.ca X-Mailer: Eudora Light pour Windows Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: "Hops, Brenda" , "Topping, Marisa" From: "Alain LaBont/e'/" Subject: Re: TR: ISO/IEC DIS 14755 ballot (Input methods) Cc: sc18wg9@dkuug.dk At 10:38 96-11-22 +0100, Hops, Brenda wrote: > >Marisa, > >I'm sending you by UPS today the usual accompanying letter + table or >replies + comments for this document. Ms. Hop, Btw I have seen the table sent to me by Mr. Nohara (SC18/WG9 secretariat in Tokyo). ITTF counts Japan as having voted yes while they voted no, but for a reason which could be interpreted as a *nyes* (they say the standard should have been a technical report, which could imply that you considered this was not unfavourable, am I wrong ?) What is the reasoning behing the tabulation made for Japan by ITTF ? Do I consider the Japanese vote as a NO vote, or like you tabulated it, as a YES vote with comments (in which case it would be unanimous adoption) ? In the draft resolution of comments, I corrected this to consider it a NO vote as that is explicitly what Japan says in its comment. I can change this if I am instructed specifically to do so. Alain LaBonté Editor, ISO/IEC 14655