At 19:09 1996-03-11, Mark Davis wrote:
>The Unicode Standard 2.0 does contain sections that are not to final amendment
>stage yet in 10646, such as Tibetan. The status of this material in 10646 will
>be clearly marked.
I appreciate the eagerness with which the Unicode Consortium would like to
publish the new version of its standard (and I am looking forward to buying
and using it!) but as a member of SC2/WG2, especially as one who has been
working hard on Tibetan, I am ... disturbed by the announcement that an
unapproved pDAM might be published in such a prestigious and important
publication, and that implementations therefore might be based on a code
table which may very well be changed, even in very minor ways, following
the normal disposition of comments on an ISO formal vote. Many countries
(China, UK, Ireland, US, Japan, Canada) made major and minor comments in
their formal votes, and none of those comments were trivial.
One worries about things like this. There was enormously unwarranted
pressure to get Tibetan agreed and encoded, and not, in my view, to the
good. More haste less speed. It would be nice to know what the publication
schedule for Unicode 2.0 is; if Tibetan is amended by WG2 in April in
Copenhagen, will those amendments be able to be published in 2.0 or not?
Michael Everson, Everson Gunn Teoranta
15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire (Ireland)
Gutháin: +353 1 478-2597, +353 1 283-9396
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:30 EDT