>Note that there has already been rather violent negative reaction from the
>W3C side against the idea of supporting any such change here, whether the
>UTC accepted a change or not. If it is the eventual goal of these people
to
>submit a UTC-approved UTF-8 variant then they should consider this fact as
>they work to shore up the proposal.
Several people have given a number of reasons given why the proposal has
problems. On the other hand, there haven't been many voices suggesting why
it is good, and only at a couple of points have there been responses to the
objections raised for the former group. I thought one of the stated
purposes of this list was to float ideas and see if any are worth pursuing.
By that measure, this proposal should be terminally ill. Unless there is
some change, some comments in favour of the proposal that (i) demonstrate a
valid need, (ii) respond to objections and (iii) result in progress in
resolving issues that would need to be solved, then it would seem to me
that this proposal shouldn't continue to be given consideration. If the
proponents are working on a document that addresses the many concerns
raised, it would be helpful if they made such indication so that others
knew what to expect form them rather than being left dangling. If they
aren't working on responding to those concerns, then perhaps they should be
conceding.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:18 EDT