Re: EUDCEDIT (was: Re: PRC asking for 956 precomposed Tibetan characters)

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 18:17:25 EST

  • Next message: Kevin Brown: "Oh No! Not a new Adobe Glyph List!!!"

    Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:

    > Neither the committees (nor the editors - if I may add that) are mere
    > automata, nor are they juries in the anglo-saxon sense (limited to
    > consider the law in light of what evidence is formally brought before
    > them). Rather they are populated with many highly intelligent,
    > knowledgeable, and astute individuals, who generally have the
    > interests of the larger user community in mind. The committees and
    > their editors also have access to many volunteers some of whom may
    > take it upon themselves to do the research and dig out any evidence
    > that was missing in the original proposal (and in the process correct
    > any obvious errors).

    All well and good, but I'm thinking of submissions that claim up-front
    not to contain any new precomposed characters or presentation forms,
    then proceed to do exactly that, on the basis that some font or newly
    approved character set includes them and "we been waiting too long for
    industry support." That's not a matter of insufficient research or
    typographical errors, it's a matter of deception.

    But I suppose you're right, the relevant committees are filled with
    intelligent and enlightened experts who will consider each proposed
    character on its own merits or demerits. I suppose that's really what
    we need and should hope for. Certainly they have done an excellent job
    so far.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 30 2002 - 18:52:39 EST