MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <v03110705b26cb5a7c58e@[130.237.37.128]>
Message-ID:  <13895.3418.375000.233026@SRAHTZ>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <v03110705b26cb5a7c58e@[130.237.37.128]>
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:42:18 +0000
From: Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: ISO LaTeX
Status: R

Hans Aberg writes:
 > The idea of an ISO LaTeX is in fact not very good because the standard must
 > be charged to pay for the salaries of the ISO bureaucrats. It means that
this is true, but not universal (see DSSSL). still, ISO standards are
a good thing, because they have *some* credibility for independence,
editing, and longevity. I'd rather have an ISO standard than a W3C
one, since

 + the membership of W3C entirely depends on companies buying their
   way in
 + the membership is largely US-based
 + their standards of writing and editing are lax
 + they change the things as it suits them
 + would _you_ trust people with hair that long :-}

sebastian