On 17/09/2011 17:45, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Bronek Kozicki wrote: [...]
simple really. ECMA is commercial organization . . .
Full stop right here.
is anything else I wrote incorrect? B. On 17/09/2011 17:10, Bronek Kozicki wrote: ... with high membership fees
(which explains why they can afford to give away standards). Its role is mostly rubber-stamping standards agreed internally by the member(s) and so the quality varies by a large degree. The are no panels of technical experts, the process is only as open as convenient to member organizations and takes no, or very little, external input. You probably wouldn't be able to contribute to ECMA work in any manner if not employed by a member organization. Due to fees involved few small organizations are involved in ECMA.
ISO is international organization whose members are national standarization bodies, membership fees (if any) are smaller than in ECMA and quality of standards is uniformly higher. It is possible for both individuals and small organizations to contribute to ISO work. Of course it may look differently in different countries, depending on bureaucracy surrounding any particular national standarization body, but in general the process is open and works. Few bother to actually contribute to ISO (majority just whine), but some do and their work is not ignored.
Having said that, I agree the price for a copy of C++ 2011 standard is much too high and was happy to learn it's going to be much lower by 2012. If you don't want to buy it from American standarization body, go to your national one and ask if you can contribute to work of ISO/IEC committee JTC1/SC22/WG21 - technical experts have free access to relevant ISO documents, including copy of standard.