Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: ANSI C standard distribution
Message-ID: <1989Feb7.225554.3086@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <19@xenlink.UUCP> <225800106@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <310@twwells.uucp> <9351@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1404@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 89 22:55:54 GMT

In article <1404@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes:
>(My reference is K&RV2; until machine-readable copies of the draft or
>proposal or standard or whateveritisthisweek become available, it will
>remain so.  I mean, really, presumably this standard is supposed to be
>used, so what do they do but refuse to use the best available means of...

Whether machine-readable copies are the "best available means" depends
on what you are trying to do and on your definition of "best".  If you
are a standards organization that (a) wants to be sure that altered copies
are not passed off as being "the standard", and (b) pays a major part of
the rent out of revenues from sales of printed standards, deciding not
to distribute machine-readable copies is rational and probably correct.
(One may dispute the relative importance of (a) and (b), but the cynic who
thinks it's all (b) is definitely wrong.)

What, exactly, is your complaint?  Do you have a machine-readable copy
of K&R2?  If not, why are you satisfied with it?  You can bet your booties
that Brian and Dennis have machine-readable copy and have decided not to
distribute it, probably as a condition of their book contract; why is this
acceptable behavior for well-paid technical experts and highly profitable
commercial publishers but not for underfunded standards organizations?
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu