> > 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