From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 11:49:34 EST
William Overington <WOverington at ngo dot globalnet dot co dot uk>
> I wonder if I might please suggest that people discussing the matter
> within the Unicode Technical Committee might like to consider Doug's
> paper in some detail and perhaps consider making reference within the
> Unicode Specification to some of the ideas which Doug pointed out,
> such as the potential for using tags for speech synthesis and so on.
The comment I received from UTC members on this point was that it was
not relevant to the argument in favor of Plane 14, because language tags
in markup carry the same benefits as Plane 14 tags, and language tagging
belongs in markup.
> In addition, if the tags are described as "reserved for use with
> particular protocols ....", then it would seem reasonable to keep open
> the possibility to allow other types of tags to be specified in the
> future if a need arises, as Doug suggests, rather than using plane 14
> tags only for languages as at present. It would seem entirely
> reasonable that the Unicode Technical Committee could possibly at some
> future meeting define one or more additional types of tag within the
> unused lower part of plane 14 within the ring-fenced reserved area.
After reading the recent posts from Asmus and Ken, it's clear to me that
the UTC does not want to encourage, or be seen as encouraging, the use
of Plane 14 tags at all. The protocol I had in mind was plain text,
which is the entire basis of Unicode and which is not dead, despite what
some people believe.
I have given up my campaign to preserve Plane 14 tags and have removed
the paper from my site. At least it gave me some experience writing a
position paper for Unicode, and hopefully next time I do one, it will be
on a topic more in line with the direction of Unicode.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 13 2003 - 12:33:40 EST