Warp wrote:

>   Did they even fix the completely standard-breaking wording of that
> "standard", along the lines of "render this paragraph in the same way
> as Word95 does it" (without specifying *how* exactly Word95 does it)?
> 
>   If they didn't, I really can't understand how the standardization
> committee can approve of a standard which doesn't actually specify
> exactly what it is standardizing.

Presumably the same way my company manages to approve procedure 
documents that say "there will exist a procedure, and it will be known 
to the people who carry it out". ;-)

Post a reply to this message