> e-sushi: Are you saying that ISO900X isn't a real ISO
standard? I'm sure
> a lot of people would be somewhat surprised by that
statement...
Guess you misread DIN900x with ISO900x or I had a typo somewhere
in one of those posts - so no, I'm not nuts <g>
Well - not really. I said/meant DIN9001 is not really ISO,
although it should be. Why? First up: I only know about this for
Germany. Local laws don't allow a company to be seen as a
standarisable object and therefore business procedures can't be
standarised officially either. That's why we got a funny thing
going on here in Germany. Companies can get a license from local
authorities that approves them to be conform to the DIN9001
standards while at the same time, this license may only be used
for international, not national purposes. On the other hand, the
DIN9001 is an official ISO format without resticts and should be
accepted worldwide - so in germany too, but somehow it isn't...
get it? Ok, since I know I sometimes fail to express myself and
so causing misunderstandings, I'll give you another alike
example for european logic failing. It's the same as being able
to buy drugs in Amsterdam when you're 18 or older, but not being
allowed to carry any drugs with you as a as non-local. So a
tourist can buy drugs 24/7, but if he get's caught carrying the
stuff with him, he gets arrested. Take this example, think
DIN9001 and Company and I'm sure you'll understand. I guess the
german DIN9001 problem is a typical example for euro-weirdness
;)
I'm not sure if all this belongs on the shell coding list
though - on the other hand, you asked... we misunderstood... I
tried to clear things up. Excuse me for having typing so much
again -I know some of you hate me for that.
later
//Mike, e-sushi@xxxxxxx
__________________________________________________
Subscription options and archive:
http://www.freelists.org/list/shell-coding
