Resending this email because for some reason my membership in the
Unicode list got deleted.
--- Rick McGowan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Suzanne T asked:
> > Can people from the review committee give me some hard and fast
> > rules for when something is thrown out?
> One rule of thumb that people can also use: if an off-the-cuff
> for a thing doesn't fly on the Unicode list, it is unlikely to fly in
I have noticed something else in this aspect. If an idea gets bashed on
the Unicode list it won't make it, and almost all the time I agree that
it shouldn't make it.
But, if something it silently ignored, then somebody has discovered
something that nobody wants to touch. I have observed this sevaral
times now, the latest incident was in the Chromatic Font Research
thread, with 2 cases:
Aztec glyphs: Some of the glyphs are identical in shape and form, but a
certain colored area changes the meaning if a different color is
applied. When Michael Everson asked for proof, both Marco Cimarosti and
I sent him links to websites that state this color issue. Silence.
Ethiopian writing: Daniel Yacob described the usage of red dots,
accents, and words in that writing system, nobody except WO followed up
with the significance of Daniel's statements. Silence, even though he
wrote "The capability to the same electronically would be well
I see two valid possible proposals here to add a color attribute to a
character. What will happen if a need for these characters is
discovered, a consortium with the necessary background is formed, and
the UTC receives an orderly proposal?
Between all the arguing and mile long emails nobody actually saw this
possibility, or wanted to see the valid issues for a proposal. I
believe it is necessary to invest some thought into what a color
implementation would mean for Unicode, not for a holly with red
berries, but for a real writing system. The silence after these valid
statements were made disturbs me.
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 05 2002 - 11:54:15 EDT