Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!ncar!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: ISO 646 alternate representation
Message-ID: <15738@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 6 Apr 91 04:49:34 GMT
References: <keld.670719584@dkuugin> <1991Apr4.171657.27791@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <keld.670872140@dkuugin>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <keld.670872140@dkuugin> keld@login.dkuug.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen) writes:
>It is not our local standard we want supported, but ISO 646 invariant,
>which is an *international* standard, and the base for all national
>ISO 646 standards.

And which the existing C standard does support.

>WG14 are now fully behind this Danish requirement.

That is not what I hear from other WG14 members.