That version of the draft was passed without changes.  It was reformatted in 
the final version though.

But, the standard that it contains is the same as the "official" standard.

pete


> => 11/23/99 9:28:34 AM EST, bert at isgnw.CS.Uni-Magdeburg.De =>
> << Word and RTF versions are ready for download at 
> ftp://www.smalltalksystems.com/sts-pub/x3j20/ >>
> 
> => 11/23/99 9:32:30 AM EST, stp at create.ucsb.edu =>
> << I just found a copy of the V1.9 ANSI standard on-line as a PDF file at
> ftp://ftp.create.ucsb.edu/pub/stp/ANSI_v1_9.PDF >> 
> 
> To all--
> 
> The above documents are entitled: "Draft American National Standard for 
> Information Systems - Programming Languages - Smalltalk." They represent the 
> 1.9 version of the draft. The "permission notice"  is as follows: 
> 
>   Notice
>     This is a draft proposed American National Standard. As such, this is not 
> a
>     completed standard. The Technical  Committee may modify this document 
>     as a result of comments received during public review and its approval as 
> a 
>     standard.
> 
>     Permission is granted to members of NCITS, its technical committees, and 
>     their associated task groups to reproduce this document for the purposes 
> of 
>     NCITS standardization activities without further permission, provided 
> this 
>     notice is included.  All other rights are reserved. Any commercial or 
> for-profit 
>     reproduction is strictly prohibited.
> 
> With that in mind, these are not the final, published versions of the ANSI 
> standard. When the standard was released last December, I got a copy from 
> ANSI, and reviewed it page by page with the v.1.9 draft standard. As I recall 
> (I can't put my hands on the published version right now), the published 
> document differed from the version 1.9 draft standard in only one significant 
> way (though I might have missed some other minor details). All of the 
> "Rationale" sections, of which there are a great number, had been removed. 
> So, in some sense, the v.1.9 draft is more complete than the published 
> standard, if you consider the Rationale paragraphs to be of value; however, 
> they do not form part of the standard.
> 
> => 11/23/99 9:32:30 AM EST, stp at create.ucsb.edu =>
> << I sure hope it's not strictly copyrighted... >>
> 
> As I recall, the copyright notice on the published standard was fairly 
> strict. But, as mentioned above, I can't cite it here because I cannot lay my 
> hands on the document itself.
> 
> May the 21st century minimize obfuscation (...not very likely...),
> Jerry.
> _________________________
> 
> Jerry L. Archibald
> _________________________
> 
> systemObjectivesIncorporated
> _________________________