In message <9605311159.AA09724@Unicode.ORG> Michael Everson wrote:
> The following documents are now available:
> http://www.indigo.ie/egt/standards/km/km.html (Khmer)
> http://www.indigo.ie/egt/standards/my/my.html (Burmese)
> http://www.indigo.ie/egt/standards/si/si.html (Sinhalese)
> In my view, Burmese and Sinhalese are very stable indeed. I am not so
> convinced that the Khmer proposal is as ripe as the other two -- but I am
> delighted to see the recent interest in Khmer encoding.
> May I suggest that
> those of us interested in Khmer (email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
> email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org) take the discussion off-line, as
> it is likely to get pretty technical.
May I suggest that you DO NOT take it off-line. All decent email lists have a
lot of technical items on - you can always press Delete for items you do not
want to see.
> This is anyway the way in which
> Unicode experts and WG2 experts are endeavouring to cooperate.
One major problem in standards development has been that it has too often
been left to too few experts. There are rarely few problems being caused by
being too open, many more by being too closed - and you get further problems
that you have to sort out later.
> The Khmer proposal has an issues list attached regarding the repertoire.
I would be very interested to see that.
If this discussion DOES go off line, could you include me in your discussions
in any case, as I am particularly interested in all three scripts.
-- John Clews (Chairman of ISO/TC46/SC2 : Conversion of Written Languages)
SESAME Computer Projects, 8 Avenue Rd. * email: Converse@sesame.demon.co.uk Harrogate, HG2 7PG, United Kingdom * telephone: +44 (0) 1423 888 432
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT