Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!axion!tsa!domo
From: domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Localization (4.4.2.1)
Message-ID: <1991Feb20.091003.4958@tsa.co.uk>
Date: 20 Feb 91 09:10:03 GMT
References: <ENAG.91Feb13234959@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no> <1991Feb16.140510.22226@tsa.co.uk> <15241@smoke.brl.mil>
Reply-To: domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop)
Organization: The Standard Answer Ltd.
Lines: 55

In article <15241@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> I take strong exception to what Dominic has posted on this issue.

Oh dear.  This seems to be one of those threads where everybody upsets
everybody else, whether intentionally or not.  And I certainly wouldn't
want to upset Doug.

> In fact, approval of the final C standard for ratification was delayed
> for quite a long time due to the additional work by X3J11 necessary to
> accommodate legitimate concerns for "internationalization" issues.

I'm aware of that.

> Coordination with various internationalization working groups was part
> of this process.  So far as I am aware, the C standard was the first
> major programming language standard to specifically address these
> issues.

Right.  C, if you like, got ``fingered'' by the international community
to be the test-bed for the provision of useful internationalization
support in prgramming languages.  So all those lucky people working on
the standard got to feel their way through a poorly-illuminated and
unexplored territory strewn with lumpy obstacles and pitfalls.  It's the
kind of process which is bound to attract accusations of poor
performance after the event from those with the benefit of hindsight.
Even if all you get wrong is Norweigian conventions in an example.
It's like the single spelling error which makes a certain class of
person reject an entire and otherwise useful document.

I'm sorry if I appeared to be such a commentator.  Apart from anything
else, it's embarrasing to be found out in making such a glib criticism!
> 
> >but what Norweigian company would want to spend money on the creation
> >of an American standard?
> 
> X3.159 is certainly more than "an American standard", as is demonstrated
> by the adoption of its technical content unchanged as the international
> standard.  It was generally considered by the X3J11 membership that we
> were working toward a SINGLE technical specification for C for EVERYONE.
> There was active participation in X3J11 by many individuals from non-
> American institutions, and during the public reviews of drafts of the
> proposed standard we received considerable commentary from many nations.

Yes, but.  As long as a standardization effort is PERCEIVED as American
(perceived, perhaps, by the same type of person as those who are
over-sensitive to spelling errors), it is my contention that many
non-Americans who could usefully participate will not participate --
hence my point about justifying participation to management.  Any
standard developed under the auspices of ANSI (or the IEEE, for that
matter) appears to be an American standard.  Happily for both C and
POSIX, a number of interested people and organizations from around the
world have been able to see through that preconception, and have made
useful contributions -- as, indeed, have many inside the U.S.
-- 
Dominic Dunlop