L2/99-343

Subject: (SC2WG3.430) JNB comments on CD 2375

Japanese NB comments on CD 2375.. (text is not well polish up yet).

The draft CD-2375 does not reflecting the Copenhagen discussion as well as
Fukuoka resolution.
It is necessary to reflect them on to the CD 2375.

Note: this comment uses WG2 documents number as reference , the same
documents are circulated at the Copenhagen WG3 as COP-numbered document.

1. Fukouka SC2 resolution requests to reflect the revised SC2 N3290 (WG2
N2091). the review process described in the draft CD-2375 is not reflecting
them.
It is necessary to make it clear that the ownership of the character name
and UCS mapping (printed glyph shape as well) is with the Sponsoring
Authority.  The review team (such as RA-JAC) shall not assign them..
.
2. The key augment at Copenhagen WG3 (mostly on Japanese comment WG2 N2089
and RA comment WG2 N2090) was that the too much power with the RA-JAC in the
proposal.  The proposed  RA-JAC does have a right to assign a character name
and UCS mapping as well as to resolve an appeal.  It is almost like one
person is a police and judge  This is why Japan want to have the Review team
and AG (for appeal) as an independent to each other team.  As far as Japan
understand is that the ownership of character shape (in print), character
name and mapping to UCS are with Sponsoring Authority.   Therefore, this
point should be clearly reflected in the CD text.


To reflect the discussion at Copenhagen meeting, Japan requests following
changes

Clause 8.3
First line. : Change the wording   verify --->review
Next to last line :  Add following text:  If necessary, RA-JAC shall provide
an advice the Sponsoring Authority the review result.

Clause 8.4
First line. : Change the wording   note ---->review
Next to last line :  Add following text:  If necessary, RA-JAC shall provide
an advice the Sponsoring Authority the review result.

Clause 8.5
First line. : Change the wording   determ --->review
Next to last line :  Add following text:  If necessary, RA-JAC shall provide
an advice the Sponsoring Authority the review result.

Rationale for above 3 request.
It was agreed at the Copenhagen meeting that the owner ship of the proposal
is with the Sponsoring Authority (as in the note).   No change or addition
of the technical specification shall be added by the RA-JAC.  RA-JAC may
review the proposal and, if needed, provided an advice to the Sponsoring
Authority to revise the proposal.  If there is a disagreement between the
Sponsoring Authority and RA-JAC, Requirement from Sponsoring Authority would
be circulated for the review by coding subcommittee members as described in
clause 7.5 (May be, with a comment of the RA-JAC might be a case).

Annex -D: If above comments are accommodated, D.3.3 may be as it is.
Otherwise, Appeals should be handled by Advisory Group (defined in current
ISO-2375).

Remember that, for the objection to sprit RA-JAC and AG, Japan made a
compromise as:
If Sponsoring Authority's ownership of character name, UCS mapping and glyph
shape is clearly stated, (means RA-JAC does not have a right to assign name
and mapping, then RA-JAC and AG may be combined.



--end----