X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
	["898" "Mon" "9" "November" "1998" "17:09:31" "+0000" "Robin Fairbairns" "Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK" nil "25" "Re: Quotes, HTML, and FrontPage" "^Date:" nil nil "11" nil "Quotes, HTML, and FrontPage" nil nil nil]
	nil)
Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1])
	by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA05521;
	Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:09:43 +0100 (MET)
Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <5.9666974A@listserv.gmd.de>; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:09:42 +0100
Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
          (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 408394 for
          LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:09:38 +0100
Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11])
          by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA23897
          for <LATEX-L@urz.uni-heidelberg.de>; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:09:35 +0100
          (MET)
Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk (cl.cam.ac.uk) [128.232.1.34] (rf) by
          heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0zcuoo-0008Au-00;
          Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:09:34 +0000
Message-ID:  <E0zcuoo-0008Au-00@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Mon, 09 Nov 1998 16:52:21 GMT." 
              <199811091652.QAA04107@lurgmhor.elsevier.co.uk>
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:09:31 +0000
From: Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.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: Quotes, HTML, and FrontPage
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 2801

>  > For the most part I think that it does not make sense for me to
>  > rely on a standard that is "owned" because I then have the concern
>  > that it could be changed in an unfair way.
>
> perhaps we could have an example of a "standard" that is not "owned";
> it is completely contradictory!!

i imagine <whoever it was[*]> was thinking of `standards' such as rtf
-- things that are specifically `owned' by a commercial organisation
(and, apparently, changed at that organisation's whim).

> ISO is "owned" by its members

who are national bodies, specifically required to represent the
interests of nation states.

(those are the `p'[articipating] and `o'[bserving] members: there are
also provisions for `l'[iaison] members, but they don't have -- can't
have -- votes.)

iso and iec and itu are parts of the united nations general setup...

r

[*] sorry, i've forgotten and deleted the mail