Re: To develop a system fit for Web-heroes.

Jan, let you tell me this once and in all clarity: Whatever you do
about SWI is fine.  However, you are not referring to SWI. You are
referring to ISO.  That is, the ISO/IEC 13211 standard.  And in that
context, your statements are flat wrong.

You are well aware that ISO/IEC 13211-1 anticipates further
extensions.  Believe me (if it does not come to you as a conclusion of
an avert reading of the codices): it would have never gone through the
rigorous process otherwise. You are well aware of subclause 5.5.
Still, you repeat over and over again a falsity that will harm many
indiviuals on this list who think in their (absolutely understandable)
naivete that all this does not affect them.  It is my duty as editor
of ISO/IEC 13211-1 to respond to this ; and since I am aware of it.

ISO/IEC does anticipate further extensions.  And any extension that
conforms to "5.5 Extensions" is fine.  But please, first read the rest
of the codex!  You have not.  There are so many deviations of SWI -
and let me clearly state that it is safe to assume that the
"extensions" that have been reported to me are not all that is there!
But who will ever be motivated to report further problems if you
suggest that all this is already beyond ISO?

(I verily regret that I cannot use this list for more than all these
"official" statements - that is: statements related to my officium.  I
would prefer to re-discuss notions of defaultiness and steadfastness
in stead.  But for the moment, there is no space for more.)