L2/99-344 From: Michael Everson [everson@indigo.ie] Sent: Sunday, October 24, 1999 7:17 AM To: JTC1/SC2/WG3 Subject: (SC2WG3.431) JNB comments on CD 2375 Arigato, Sato-san, for your comments. I remind everyone else that there is only 6 days left to comment. >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. My take on it is that Fukuoka gave guidelines on what to address, not instructions as to how things should be addressed. >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.. I think the draft already states this. The RA-JAC can only recommend character names or UCS mappings to the Sponsoring Authority. The SA doesn't have to accept them, and the RA has to listen to the SA in such an instance. >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 recommending mappings and names, not assigning them, and the resolution of appeal is ONLY based on the two reasons for making the appeal, which have nothing to do with character names or UCS mappings. So the "domain of power" isn't really a policeman/judge situation. >It is almost like one >person is a police and jadge 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. I thought it was, but we can look at it again. As far as the comments below go, I request Ed Hart, who knows the draft very well, to discuss with me what changes need to be made. I think "verify" is a good word; if an SA proposes a mapping the RA-JAC should check to see that it is correct. This is verification. >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. That is correct. >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. I have always understood that this was the case. RA-JAC has no right to "assign" names and mappings, but part of its job is to review _and_ verify and inform the SA if it thinks there is an error. -- Michael Everson * Everson Gunn Teoranta * http://www.indigo.ie/egt 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland Guthán: +353 1 478 2597 ** Facsa: +353 1 478 2597 (by arrangement) 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire