Unicode Technical Committee and X3L2 Joint Meeting UTC Meeting #67 X3L2 Meeting #166 Friday, December 8, 1995 Cupertino, CA Hosted by Hewlett-Packard Company Chair: Joan Aliprand; Vice-Chair: Ed Hart; Scribe: Steve Greenfield Meeting called to order at 10:00 a.m. Attendance: Joan Aliprand, Research Libraries Group (UTC Chair; Unicode, Inc. Secretary), br.jma@rlg.stanford.edu Joseph D. Becker, Xerox Corporation (Unicode Inc. Technical Vice-President) joe_becker@unicode.org Don Carroll, Hewlett-Packard Company (Alternate) Peter Edberg, Apple Computer (Alternate), edberg@applelink.apple.com Asmus Freytag, ASMUS, Inc. (Unicode, Inc. Vice President--Marketing), asmus_freytag@unicode.org Judith Gilbert, AT&T GIS (Alternate), judith.gilbert@sandiegoca.attgis.com Al Griffee, AFII, afii@ix.netcom.com Edwin Hart, SHARE (X3L2 Chair), ehart@share.org Lloyd Honomichl, Novell, lloyd_honomichl@novell.com John H. Jenkins, Taligent (Alternate), john_jenkins@taligent.com Mike Kernaghan, Microsoft (Unicode, Inc. Vice President) mike_kernaghan@unicode.org Tatsuo Kobayashi, Justsystem Corporation, tatsuo_kobayashi@justsystem.co.jp Mike Ksar, Hewlett-Packard Company, ksar@hpcea.ce.hp.com John McConnell, Apple Computer, jmcc@apple.com Rick McGowan, NeXT Software (Unicode Inc. Technical Director), rick_mcgowan@next.com Lisa Moore, IBM Corporation (Alternate), lisam@vnet.ibm.com Tom Naughten, Apple Computer (Alternate), naughtont@eworld.com Gary Roberts, AT&T GIS, gary.roberts@elsegundoca.attgis.com Murray Sargent, Microsoft Corporation, murrays@microsoft.com Michel Suignard, Microsoft Corporation (Alternate), (Unicode Inc. European Coordinator), michelsu@microsoft.com Tex Texin, Progress Software, texin@bedford.progress.com Ken Torri, Software AG, 75611.327@compuserve.com Ken Whistler, Sybase (Unicode Inc. Technical Director), kenw@sybase.com Arnold Winkler, Unisys (UTC Vice Chair), awinkler@po3.bb.unisys.com Full (Corporate) Member companies represented: AT&T GIS; Apple Computer; Ecological Linguisitcs (by proxy); Hewlett-Packard Company; IBM; Justsystem; Microsoft; NeXT Computer; Novell; Research Libraries Group; Sybase; Taligent; Unisys. Associate Member companies represented: ASMUS, Inc.; Progress Software; SHARE; Software AG. X3L2 Member companies represented: Apple Computer; Hewlett-Packard Company; IBM; Microsoft; Research Libraries Group; SHARE; Taligent; Unicode, Inc.; Unisys. Document Register: UTC67-95-053 Preliminary Agenda of Joint UTC/X3L2 Meeting UTC67-95-054 UTC #66 Draft Minutes UTC67-95-055a Conclusive Proposal for Encoding of Ethiopic Syllabary, by Joe Becker UTC67-95-055b Ethiopic Glyphs Variants (Appendix) by Joe Becker UTC67-95-056 Proposal for character to represent embedded object, memo from Murray Sargent UTC67-95-057 Unicode 2.0 Codespace Allocation [Current Character Content Table] by Joe Becker UTC67-95-058 Highlights of Tokyo WG2 Meeting UTC67-95-059 Math Operator Character Class, by Murray Sargent X3L2/95-125 A proposal for funding the programs of Braille Research and Literacy, by Peter Duran X3L2/95-129 Liaison report from SC22/WG20, from A. Winkler X3L2/95-130 Comments on pDAM #8 X3L2/95-131 Liaison reports: ISO/IEC JTC/SC18 and AFII, from Alan Griffee UTC roll call had been taken during the preceding Closed Caucus so was waived. X3L2 member roll call had been taken at the meeting on Thursday, December 7. Agenda ------ The following additional topics were added to the Agenda: Japanese proposal to WG2 on Braille; Precomposed letters for Livonian; Math Operator Character Class; Embedded Object proposal. Status of the Unicode Conferences was put under 2 (meetings). Discussion on Book (Version 2.0) placed under new Business. Discussion on Paper distribution to Associate members from X3L2. The Precomposed Yiddish Proposal was accepted at UTC #66. X3L2 also accepted this proposal. Approval of Minutes ------------------- The Chair requested approval of the Minutes of UTC #66. Texin asked for a clarification about an action item that was listed under his name. He requested that the wording be changed to reflect an inquiry on his part, not an actual request to head up a committee concerning the listed action. Hart supplied a number of amendments. It was also recommended that the whole paragraph concerning the Japanese proposal be deleted. Action Item (Greenfield & Aliprand): The Minutes for this UTC (Draft Minutes to UTC #67) are to be sent out through e-mail on "minutes@unicode.org" by the end of the month. This will facilitate better feedback and a timeliness of delivery. Standing Action Item (Greenfield): Regardless of what papers are distributed by e-mail prior to each UTC, printed Agendas are to be provided for each meeting. The Minutes from the previous UTC are also to be provided in hard-copy for every UTC. The Agenda will start t he document numbers for each UTC, with the minutes being the next in the series. Closed Caucus Minutes will be provided only to Corporate Member representatives. Closed Caucus Minutes will have the same number as the Minutes of the Op en Meeting, augmented with "A". Motion (moved by NeXT; seconded by Taligent): That the Minutes of UTC #66 as amended be approved. Vote: 8 yes, 0 no, 5 abstentions (those member representatives who were not at UTC #66) Motion passed. Action item (Aliprand): Incorporate requested amendments. Distribute to "minutes" DL. Schedule of Future Meetings --------------------------- The June and December meetings will be joint UTC/X3L2 meetings. IBM offered to host UTC #68 in March. March 8 is the primary choice date, with March 1 as second choice. Microsoft offered to host the joint UTC/X3L2 meeting in June (UTC #69 & X3L2 #167) in Redmond, WA. This will be a two-day meeting on June 6-7. UTC #70 will held on September 12 at a location (to be decided) in the Bay Area. AT&T GIS offered to host the joint UTC/X3L2 meeting in December (UTC #71 & X3L2 #168) in San Diego, CA. This will be a two-day meeting on December 5- 6, and will include the Annual Membership Meeting. Al Griffee suggested that this could also be a co-located meeting with X3V1. Action Item (Griffee): Check on whether V1 would be willing to have a joint meeting. Also verify that AT&T GIS has the facilities available. Report back by the March meeting on whether a co-located meeting with X3V1 is possible. Action Item (Greenfield): Arrange for a site for UTC #70. Script Development ------------------ Tibetan: The Tibetan proposal developed at UTC #65 is being balloted as pDAM #5. No projected counts are available, but the US voted yes. Ethiopic: Joe Becker presented a proposal for encoding of Ethiopic script (as a syllabary). To aid UTC discussion, the document was split into two parts: the proposal proper (covering the basic Ethiopic syllabary), and appendices (covering more esoteric material). This proposal is based on that in UTR #2 and a British proposal. Experts have been involved in the project. One of the most contentious issues was the name for the script: "Ethiopic" has no specific geographical connection, and was preferred to "Ge'ez" as being easier to pronounce. No additional comments have been received from the experts, even after requesting feedback. The next step is to send this proposal to WG2 and let the comments come in at that time. It was noted that, if the UTC accepted the proposal, the accompanying cover letter would need to be rewritten, as a submission to WG2 from the Unicode Consortium. Becker would then be identified as Chair of group that worked on the proposal. Motion (moved by NeXT, seconded by RLG): That the UTC accepts the Ethiopic encoding in document number UTC67- 95-055a and that this proposal with amendments as discussed should be submitted to WG2 for consideration as an addition to ISO 10646. Vote: 11 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention. Motion passed. At such time as this proposal is balloted by ISO, X3L2 is expected to vote positively on it. Ethiopic script will not be published as part of Version 2.0. It was noted that there is a need for a mechanism for the management of additions to the Unicode Standard post-Version 2.0. Action Item (Becker): Becker is to modify the cover letter to be a submission from the Unicode Consortium or from X3L2 and the Consortium jointly. The proposal should be submitted to WG2 in January for consideration at Copenhagen meeting. Action Item (Aliprand): Aliprand is to provide a letter stating that Joe Becker is empowered to submit this proposal on behalf of X3L2 and UTC. Standing Action Item (UTC Members): Provide phonetic information for characters in UTC documents. Yod with Hirik: This character was accepted by the UTC at Meeting #66. There needs to be an action item attached to forward this on to X3L2. Action Item (Aliprand): On behalf of X2L2 and the Unicode Consortium, submit this character to WG2 for consideration as an addition to ISO 10646. Distribution of X3L2 Documents ------------------------------ Texin asked whether Associate Members will receive X3L2 documents. Winkler said he had already considered this issue, and will send documentation only to those participants who will use it. Due to the expense of copying and mailing, this must be a limited offer. This is not an open invitation to anyone, and should not be seen as such. If the participant is actively involved, they will continue to receive documents as they are mailed out. Freytag said that it was necessary to balance costs vs. participation in UTC/X3L2 meetings. We do not owe corporate members more than one automatic copy, and distribution otherwise should be limited to self-declared active members. Aliprand added a point of clarification. Although these documents come from an American national standards subcommittee, they are made available to overseas members of the Unicode Consortium upon request because they are discussed at UTC meetings. Freytag recommended that determination of recipients should be at Winkler's discretion. Winkler circulated a list of those already receiving a set of X3L2 documents. He asked that all those wishing to receive documents in future mailing add their name and address. Hart requested that the Minutes record and the UTC recognize all the work that Arnold Winkler has done (and continues to do) for the UTC and X3L2. Version 2.0 ----------- Each Main Representative of Corporate and Associate Member companies has been mailed a copy of the text for Version 2.0. Steve Greenfield asked that anyone who has not received a copy contact him immediately. The Character Names List (prepared by Asmus Freytag and Joe Becker) is to be copied and sent to Main Representatives of Member companies. Feedback should be sent to Steve Greenfield at the Unicode Office. Deadline for comments is January 15, 1996. If possible, please submit them before the deadline. Only marked up pages should be sent, not the entire manuscript. All comments should be made in red ink only. Steve Greenfield will then make sure that the comments reach the right member of the Authors' Group. Action item (Book Editors): Send procedures on how to return comments to Members. Acceptance of Version 2.0 will be by letter ballot. The letter should state: Do the members approve the Standard as it is to go forward with printing? If there are showstoppers, a contingency vote will be acceptable, too, i.e., a "no" vote changed to "yes" provided this action is taken. Action Item (Greenfield): Send out letter ballot re publication of Version 2.0 on Monday, December 11 by e-mail and fax. Symmetric swapping characters: Sargent thought that there were differences in the lists of symmetric swapping characters in Version 2.0 and ISO 10646. Whistler said they are the same. Sargent then asked about the implications for math of the symmetric swapping characters. Action Item (Sargent): By Jan. 12 (end of review period), submit an editorial comment to Lisa Moore on symmetric swapping characters and mathematics. Verify lists in ISO 10646 and Unicode and see if and what are wrong. This would allow the review editors to take action at the UTC in March. Contingent Action Item (Freytag): If there are found to be discrepancies, Freytag is to submit a WG2 error report. Normative Parts of Chapter 3, "Conformance": IBM is concerned about the normative parts of Chapter 3. Should "normative" be defined in terms of results?, that is, any means of producing identical results is acceptable. Motion (moved by IBM, seconded by NeXT): As far as normative algorithms are incorporated in the Unicode Standard, Version 2.0, any implementation which produces equal results is considered conformant. Vote: Approved unanimously. WG2 Report: ---------------- Freytag reported on the WG2 meeting in Tokyo. The issue of Korean names likely to be resolved in Copenhagen. Suignard has been in touch with Korea. Canada, US, Singapore comments were accepted, and WG2 approved immediate depreciation of the previous hangul. This means that Version 2.0 is in full agreement with pDAM #5. Freytag referred to the cooperative project to develop Tibetan script encoding as a possible model for the development of other script proposals. Mongolia ("Outer Mongolia") plans to meet with China twice to prepare a draft proposal fo r Mongolian script. Freytag said that Unicode, Inc would not be sending people to these meetings. However, he issued a formal invitation at the WG2 meeting in Tokyo to both interested parties to meet with the UTC to finalize the proposal. The Unicode Consortium is an "interested party" for Mongolian script. Becker supported a UTC role as a broker for script development. The best work on Mongolian has been done by Korf from Berlin; in Becker's opinion, this is the only work that you can base anything on. Korf has been in touch with Mongolia and their delegate to WG2. Chinese work on Mongolian is getting better and better. Becker also received a message from Lofting reporting that Korf is appalled that his work has been ignored in Ulan Bator. Freytag can do his best to hook us into the development process for a particular script at WG2 meetings, but needs backing from the UTC and the UTC needs to process comments on a script in a timely manner. A script needs a Unicode point person; someone to turn these various proposals into a Unicode proposal. Becker volunteered to be UTC Project Editor for Mongolian script, circumstances permitting. McGowan volunteered to be backup editor. Action Item (Becker): Project Editor (Becker) to supply status report to Unicode Liaison to WG2 (Freytag) by March for Copenhagen meeting. IRG ----- 7K is high priority subset for HSB collection. The IRG Meeting scheduled for the week of February 5 is to be sponsored by the Unicode Consortium. Apple is providing the facilities for the meeting. The UTC needs to formulate its position before the meeting. Action Item: Chair of EASC (John Jenkins) to arrange this meeting of ideographic experts on UTC before the IRG meeting. If proposals are made for ideographic structure symbols, this is a long term solution that we can support. Chinese are starting to encode these unilaterally. Becker advised that we should wait to see a Chinese demo of this approach. Jenkins said that the UTC is always interested in this topic. The problems are (a) feasibility, and (b) politics. Americans cannot take the lead. Freytag observed that China is in the position to not only make proposals, but to create standards. A bit of proactivity (e.g., being quick with reviews) on our part might help. McGowan asked which codes are high priority for BMP. Freytag said we should identify chars of highest priority to industry internationally. McGowan agreed, saying that the focus should be on current industry needs (including library automation). Kobayashi said that he could not can't say much with respect to Version 2.0, but perhaps would provide input for Version 3.0 in the future. The number of ideographs is estimated as 50K in Japan, and 60K in China (including historical and rare ones). It is impossible to put them all in Unicode code space. We need to think about practicality. Names, for example, are one concern: many gaiji are used for these. We might separate ideographs based on usage levels. There is a limitation on how many characters you can include in Unicode space. Even in JIS standards, although the meaning may be the same, variant forms are encoded, all in flat code. Currently, work is proceeding on revision of JIS 0208. Within this group, there is examination of the same meaning with different shapes. Also, same characters with different meanings makes the problem worse. In the future, we need to look at various options. Freytag thanked Kobayashi for valuable input, and mentioned the need for specific proposals for the next IRG meeting. He invited Kobayashi to work with Jenkins before the IRG meeting on Unicode Consortium input to the IRG. In March, Jenkins and other attendees at the IRG meeting would report back to the UTC, in preparation for the WG2 meeting in April. Sargent asked whether, with respect to the large number of ideographic characters, a UTF-16 approach would be of help. McGowan said to make sure that Justsystem Corporation has previous UTC documents related to this issue. Action Item (Jenkins): Jenkins undertook to supply these documents. Defect Reports -------------- China filed a defect report for precomposed accented letters used in pinyin transcription. The intent is to have a complete set of precomposed letters for pinyin. WG2 has taken no action on the defect report. Freytag said that it is a question of which characters are missing. He proposed that Microsoft submit paper on any that are missing for March meeting. Becker offered his source information. Becker said that it is really a question of what constitutes a defect. Ksar said there were a couple of items that we forgot to include in ISO 10646. The intent was to cover pinyin. Becker responded that the issue of defect could be finessed by simply proposing them as additional characters. There was discussion in the question of reporting a defect vs. proposing additional character(s). An additional question was that of an audit trail to document the intended number of pinyin characters. Becker asked: Does pinyin include these characters? They should be evaluated as additions. Jenkins added: Particularly in this case where the entities can be created by composition. Need a more convincing case. Motion (moved by Next, seconded by IBM): It is the sense of the Unicode Technical Committee that, unless there is an editing error supported by documentation, missing characters cannot be considered defects but must he handled by the standard procedures for repertoire addition. Vote: 12 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention (Reason: No linguistic expertise) Motion passed. Freytag said that there was information from China; they have compiled a standard that is a defacto industry standard. This does contain these characters. We have tried to include compatibility characters for widely used sets, but do not guarantee round trip compatibility for post-1991 standards. Whistler said that the issue is coverage of new GBK standard. Are we interconvertable? Kobayashi said that, in many cases, Japanese dictionaries have accent marks for the benefit of the reader. He worked on an electronic version, with many non-standard combinations. Since Unicode covers composition, there is a need to look at minute details. Is this perhaps comparable? Jenkins said that GB12345-90 is not yet a stable standard. He has seen complaints about Han Unification based on printed copies. There are variant editions. It was agreed to continue further discussion of this topic off-line. Action Item (Suignard): Write a proposal on the precomposed characters needed for pinyin. Submit it to the UTC for the March meeting. He is also to verify the existence of these characters. Byzantine Music Characters -------------------------- At the Tokyo WG2 meeting, Greece was very insistent on inclusion of these characters in the BMP. Freytag recommended looking at this topic again, maybe for the March. Freytag is not asking for reconsideration of the UTC decision, but for help in clarification of this item. McGowan volunteered to review this material for the UTC (as Chair of the Scripts and Symbols SC). Action Item (McGowan): Report on Byzantine music notation at the March UTC. Uniqueness of Character Names ----------------------------- WG2 decided to create a new category for this. WG2 adopted (asked Freytag for further clarification on this topic.) There were special notations that concern Unicode and 10646. Action item (Freytag): Draft a letter to WG2 that the UTC is heavily in favor of what they are trying to do with this special notation. Jenkins requested that this be formalized and noted in the Minutes as more that just an action item. Motion (moved by Taligent, seconded by Unisys): That the UTC formally endorses the notation developed by WG2. Vote: 11 yes, 0 no, 2 abstentions (Novell, Justsystem) Motion passed. Braille ------- We originally maintained that braille is a font. The Japanese proposal to WG2 said that different dot patterns represent different characters. The UTC needs to come up with a model that the braille device owns the rendering. If this is so, you need language information in the document. McGowan said that, in our original consideration of Braille, we did not consider this problem. If transcoding requires language information, then our position was wrong. Hart: X3L2 was approached in 1990 about a similar topic. There are 5 different codings of Braille for English within the US. Action Item (Hart and McGowan): Take this topic and give Freytag further information, especially regarding the 1990 proposal so that he has something else to follow through on, rather than the incomplete set of information that has been given so far. This should be reported at the March UTC. McGowan said it appears as though we have many things being multiplexed onto the same symbols. Hart said that it is also a reordering issue, and it needs investigation. Jenkins said this is no longer a font issue, but a character issue. This is why this item should be investigated. African Symbols --------------- Action Item (Aliprand): Report on the African Symbols in WG2 N1143 at the UTC in March. Electro-Technical Symbols ------------------------- Action item (Jenkins and Freytag): They are to work together on this item. ISO 10646 Repertoire Cut-Off ---------------------------- Members were asked to consider this issue: whether it is better to keep in synch in physicality, or for one standard to always be up-to-date. Action Item (UTC Participants): Members are to consider this topic and have rebuttals available for the March Meeting. Uniqueness of Character Names ----------------------------- Griffee asked: In light of unique identifiers, what is continued expectations/standing of names? Freytag replied that they would continue to be unchangeable. At the WG2 meeting, the vote on this resolution (uniqueness of names) was after the vote on identifiers. A character name must be unique within a language edition of standard, but not necessarily globally unique. Ksar added that not every country needs to come up with names in own language; there is the option of using English. Freytag said that WG2 did not contemplate making names informative only. He would like the UTC to endorse this position, and ask WG2 to reflect it procedurally in N1252 for addition of characters. Motion (moved by Sybase, seconded by Microsoft): That the UTC endorses the WG2 position on uniqueness of names, and recommends that WG2 reflect this procedurally in Document N 1252. Vote: 12 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention (AT&T) [Reason: Once you've decided that's your unique name, it's dangerous to use different names.] Motion passed. ISO Ballots ----------- US Vote is yes concerning PDAM 6 Tibetan. PDAM 7 and PDAM 8: PDAM 7 is going to be a NO vote unless the WG2 votes it in. Then the PDAM would be voted yes. WG20 (Internationalization) --------------------------- WG20 deals with Internationalization issues, and Winkler is the Convenor. There is no equivalent group (TAG) in the US. Winkler would like to have input from the UTC on specific documents. He does not wish to send them out to everyone, but just to those who would participate. Freytag proposed that Winkler select the WG20 documents that he considers of potential interest to the UTC for distribution. A list of recipients will be maintained by Winkler. Recipients must be willing to review the documents and contribute comments. Whistler, McGowan, and Moore volunteered. McGowan said that selected documents accompanied by queries from Winkler would be helpful. Winkler could then draft a consensus statement from the responses. Winkler accepted this as a standing action item. Winkler cited an example where input would be helpful: there are currently four sorting standards under development: in WG20, CEN/TC304, TC37, and NISO (National Information Standards Organization, an ANSI affiliate). Whistler would like to go on the record as stating that standardization of sorting conventions is required. He would also like to see the development of full specifications of what is expected behavior for specific languages and cultures. It would be much more useful to have specifications like this to guide implementation. SC18: ----- Griffee reported that the data entry standard developed by SC18/WG9 is at the CD level. Action Item (Griffee): Give review of what WG9 to Steve Greenfield and see who would want a copy. Livonian (10 additional letters) was not discussed. Embedded Objects: ----------------- Sargent presented a proposal for an Embedded Objects character. Would be nice to be able to flag embedded object in plain text and query it. Freytag pointed out that this proposal is not a stateful start/stop method. He disagreed with proposed code value. The proposal relates a development that was not prevalent in 1988/89 when the Unicode Standard was first developed. The proposal represents a non-intrusive solution. Jenkins supported the proposal, arguing that it is necessary for minimal legibility, i.e., I have a picture at this point, but I can't show it to you. It is a variant of the replacement character. Texin asked where is the information about an embedded object in a plain text stream? Griffee suggested that it may be necessary to identify the type of object. Sargent responded that identification is done by parallel rich-text information. Whistler proposed that the character: * Should be placed under Special Characters (as per Freytag). * Should be placed at FFFC and named as Object Replacement Character. * Symbol should also be a dashed square with "OBJ" inside. Kernaghan asked whether we setting a precedent, and whether this is an area we want to get involved with. Can this be used against us in any future areas? Can we extrapolate problems if we allow this? Freytag was also concerned, but the proposal represents a good and solid solution to recent developments. Putting the proposed character in the Specials block limits the likelihood of more. Whistler agreed with Freytag, and pointed out that three companies had independently devised similar solutions for embedded objects. This is a good reason to add the character, as there is a demonstrated need. McGowan proposed that the UTC accepts the proposal and submit the character to WG2. Jenkins said that this character does not hide information. There is a needs for an anchor character in plain text that indicates"here there be out-of-band information." The anchor character itself says **nothing** about the out-of-band information, and will not. Honomichl asked about the attributes related to this character. Jenkins replied that it should say "out of band content" with no further semantics. Action Item (Sargent): Sargent is to produce a formal proposal (with the UTC's feedback incorporated from UTC 67) and submit it to McGowan so that we can submit it to WG2 as a formal document. Freytag pointed out that plain text is backbone for rich text edifices. Jenkins added that the goal for Unicode has been to provide the minimum for what is meaningful for exchange of text information. Motion (moved by Microsoft, seconded by Taligent): That the UTC accepts the Object Replacement character at location FFFC, and file form 1252 with WG2 with a strong recommendation to accept it as such. Vote: 12 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention (Apple). Motion passed. It was agreed that this new character will not go into Version 2.0. Mathematical Operator Property -------------------------------------- Sargent said that this property is used to identify strongly mathematical characters (most of which are in the Mathematical Operators block). Freytag proposed an amendment to Sargent's proposal: to exclude full-width compatibility forms. Sargent accepted the amendment. In Properties, this would mean replacing "symbol -- other" with "symbol -- math." In addition, the property should be included in the Mathematical Operators block description. Texin asked about text display, and commented that style information was needed. Freytag said that we have an inherent property, and use it under full-fledged math display. Jenkins agreed in principle with the proposal, but considered the list too inclusive. Becker suggested a parallel with a "language marker," e.g. why not a "Cyrillic Text" property? Whistler said that characters have multiple properties. The set proposed by Sargent is right. It is useful to present an informative property. McGowan would like an algorithm for parsing of math, and would prefer that this be published as a Unicode Technical Report. Sargent suggested the concept of "weakly math" chars., e.g. Greek letters, limited set of Latin 1. He postulated further definition of the mathematical operator property. Freytag said that he had consulted with Mark Davis about Sargent's proposal. Davis does not want to specify an algorithm, but he liked the informative property concept. Motion (moved by Microsoft, seconded by Taligent): The UTC accepts Sargent's proposal as amended, and that it be incorporated in Version 2.0 as an informative property. Vote: 10 yes, 1 nay, 2 abstentions (RLG, Ecological Linguistics) Reports ------- Unicode Office: Because of time constraints, Greenfield did not report on Office activity. Action Item (Greenfield): Send out a report on office activity to the unicore, unicorps, and minutes distribution lists. Conferences: Lisa Moore reported on plans for future conferences. The Eighth International Unicode/ISO 10646 Conference is to be held in Hong Kong in April (2 days during the week of 4/10-12). The Ninth Conference will be held in San Jose (at the Red Lion Inn) on September 4-6 (3 days). Barbara Jarzyna is in Hong Kong seeing about facilities. The primary role of the Consortium is to provide the Editorial Board for the conferences. There have been a couple of volunteers for the Hong Kong conference. Also try and get people to sign up as exhibitors. This will offer us another pull to people. X3L2 Liaison Report: Liaison report passed out by Griffee. AFII has undergone a reorganization, and will be an information provider, not a standards organization. Griffee would like to see a closer relationship between our two organizations. Action Item (Griffee): Find out the logistical support requirements for X3V1 and provide this information to Aliprand and Gilbert. The question of co-located UTC/X3L2 and X3V1 meetings can then be resolved at the March meeting. Comments on pDAM 8 (Informative Annex on CJK Unification) --------------------------------------------------------- Aliprand had drafted comments to support the US "no" vote. Edberg agreed to continue this work and incorporate additional comments made at the meeting. Action Item (Jenkins and Edberg): Text and provision within the next few days regarding this PDAM. Jenkins will provide the text by the end of X3L2's meeting. Hart thanked the UTC for working together with X3L2. Freytag was thanked for his work to bring the joint meetings about. Hart is out-going Chair of X3L2, and Winkler is the in-coming Chair. It had been agreed at UTC #66 that Winkler should be appointed Vice-Chair of the UTC if he was willing to serve. Winkler accepted the appointment as UTC Vice-Chair. The Chair thanked Mike Ksar for Hewlett-Packard's hospitality in hosting this UTC meeting. Meeting adjourned at 5:01 p.m.