Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)

From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 11:23:02 EDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)"

    Andrew C. West <andrewcwest at alumni dot princeton dot edu> wrote:

    > I have to agree 100% with Peter on this. The potential fiasco with
    > regards to Mongolian Free Variation Selectors is another area where
    > our grandchildren are going to be weeping with despair if we are
    > not careful. The standardized variants for Mongolian were set in
    > stone by Unicode based on an unfortunate but understandable
    > misunderstanding of the infamous TR170, and now that it is apparent
    > from Chinese and Mongolian sources that Unicode had got hold of
    > completely the wrong end of the stick (the defined standardized
    > variants are actually intended for use in isolation only, and the same
    > MFVS that selects one variant form in isolation may be used to select
    > a completely different variant within running text ... which of course
    > it can't according to the Standardized Variants document), instead of
    > just wiping the slate clean and redefining a new and consistant set of
    > standardized variants that correspond to actual usage within China
    > and Mongolia, Unicode is determined to preserve the original erroneous
    > standardised variants come hell or high water - even though no-one has
    > ever seriously used them yet (well, the Chinese and Mongolians will go
    > ahead and do it their way whatever Unicode decides).

    Just a day or two ago we had a discussion about "fast-tracking" or
    short-circuiting the standardization process, or otherwise using things
    that were partway through the process before they had received final
    approval.

    Without expressing an opinion on Unicode's handling of Mongolian, or
    Hebrew, or Tibetan, I think this thread shows clearly why decisions must
    be thought out carefully and not rushed. The perception that "Unicode
    got it wrong," whether real or imagined, can cause great damage to the
    credibility and acceptance of the standard.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California
     http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 12:22:20 EDT