From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 00:50:06 EST
Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:
> For example, even though UTC approved the COMBINING RIGHT DOT in
> principle, it didn't get added for Unicode 4.0 or the corresponding
> ISO edition. If the proposal had been just for that character, the
> cost/benefit of squeezing a single character in to enable a given user
> community to make progress might have outweighed the reluctance to
> last-minute additions.
>
> With the proposal asking for so much more, it's unclear whether the
> COMBINING RIGHT DOT would have satisfied the requesters, so it was put
> off until a later day.
That didn't quite answer the exact question I was asking, although it is
a very interesting peek into the process and I thank Asmus for it.
What I was really wondering is whether deliberate (or reckless)
falsehoods on a proposal form can hurt the credibility of the proposal
to the extent that it might be rejected, when it might otherwise have
been approved if more truthful and careful answers to the compulsory
questions were given.
For example: It is at least *possible* to imagine a situation whereby
WG2 (or UTC) might consider encoding a new precomposed character, under
some extraordinary and compelling set of circumstances. Suppose, for
this example, that the circumstances really were extraordinary and
compelling and not just a hack to get around the short-term inadequacies
of rendering engines and all that.
Now, imagine two proposals that could be written for this character. In
one, the Technical-Justification question about whether the proposal
includes any precomposed characters is answered truthfully, and then the
proposal attempts to justify encoding the character by explaining the
extraordinary and compelling circumstances.
In the other, the question is answered "No," denying reality, as if the
WG2 (or UTC) members couldn't recognize a precomposed character when
they saw one.
Would the first proposal be taken more seriously than the second because
of the way the T-J question was answered? Remember, both proposals in
this example are for the same character. And my question applies to the
UTC thought process as well as that of WG2.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 30 2002 - 01:23:18 EST