From keld@dkuug.dk Fri Dec 10 14:59:46 1993
Received: by dkuug.dk id AA21553
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for i18n@dkuug.dk); Fri, 10 Dec 1993 13:59:48 +0100
Message-Id: <199312101259.AA21553@dkuug.dk>
From: keld@dkuug.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 13:59:46 +0100
In-Reply-To: Willem Wakker <comp@komp.ace.nl>
       "(SC22.464) Response to comments from Mr. Alain LaBont<e'>" (Dec 10, 12:23)
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mnemonic-Intro: 29
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.2 4/12/91)
To: Willem Wakker <comp@komp.ace.nl>, sc22@dkuug.dk, sc22wg11@dkuug.dk,
        i18n@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: (SC22.464) Response to comments from Mr. Alain LaBont<e'>

Willem Wakker writes:

> I hope that I do not fall in the same trap when I point out to those who
> are less familiar with the matter that (1) SC22/WG15 POSIX has never asked
> for the datatype to support their Locales, (2) during the last SC22 plenary
> the WG20 representative told me that the issue of the datatype was never
> discussed in WG20 and (3) all references to support the requested datatype
> (the Canadian Standard and the SHARE document) are based on work done by Alain.
> In other words: everything points back to Alain, and only to him.
> Does this make the requested datatype less needed? Maybe not. Maybe Alain is
> one of the very few people in this world with the right vision. But is is not
> the task of WG11 to validate this vision, without further support from other
> experts.

I believe I am the WG20 representative, Willem points to. May I point out that
the fact that WG20 has not discussed it, is due to the number of items
on the WG20 agenda, there is really a lot to do. This does not mean that
the Canadian LID proposal is not important, but many other things have been deemed
more important in WG20.

Keld