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