Re: PRC asking for 956 precomposed Tibetan characters

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 00:50:06 EST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: PRC asking for 956 precomposed Tibetan characters"

    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