Translating the standard

[Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode]

On 3/13/2018 12:55 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> It is then a version of the matching standards from Canadian and 
> French standard bodies. This does not make a big difference, except 
> that those national standards (last editions in 2003) are not kept in 
> sync with evolutions of the ISO/IEC standard. So it can be said that 
> this was a version for the 2003 version of the ISO/IEC standard, 
> supported and sponsored by some of their national members.

There is a way to transpose international standards to national 
standards, but they then pick up a new designation, e.g. ANSI for US or 
DIN for German or EN for European Norm.

A./
>
> 2018-03-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode 
> <unicode at unicode.org <mailto:unicode at unicode.org>>:
>
>     On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
>>     On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +0000, Michel Suignard wrote:
>>>     Time to correct some facts.
>>>     The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper.
>>>     ...
>>     Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got Andrew’s point, too.
>     Correction: if a project is not carried out by SC2 (the proper
>     ISO/IEC subcommittee) then it is not a "version" of the ISO/IEC
>     standard.
>
>     A./
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20180313/f367935d/attachment.html>