Re: ISO 15924 draft fixes

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 07:44:01 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: ISO 15924 draft fixes"

    From: "Michael Everson" <>
    > >It can't be Unicode's UTC alone, as there are
    > >already codes for bibliographic references that
    > >are not (and will never) be encoded separately
    > >in Unicode,so I suppose that there are librarian
    > >or publishers members with which you have to
    > >discuss, independantly of the work of Unicode,
    > >which should only be the registrar for these
    > >codes. May be there's still no formal procedure,
    > >and for now the codes are maintainable without
    > >lots of administration.
    > Read the standard.

    Stop this easy argument (that I find offensive here), you could have read it too
    before publishing tables with errors (most probably because you forgot to
    consult the relevant sources to check that your document were correct; I note
    that you are taking some freedom with you own decisions, regarding Coptic and
    the removal of Georgian (Asomtavruli) coded "Geoa"). I have read it and that's
    why I propose corrections...

    OK there are lots of corrections, but that's not a reason of ignoring some
    elements that were already published (and are still published for now on the
    Unicode web site, which is the only reference for the ISO15924 "Registration
    Authority". Unicode has just appointed you to perform administrative updates for
    the RA, not to take your own decisions.)

    Sorry if you think that these sentences are a bit aggressive but for now the RA
    has made a bad start, and it's mainly because of your work... If the publication
    was preliminary (waiting for comments) it should have been documented as such on
    the Unicode web site (like for the proposals in Unicode, which pass by a testbed
    before being listed as "standard").

    For now I suggest an immediate warning in the ISO15924 web pages, explicitly
    stating that these published tables were in beta, and contain incoherences,
    which are being corrected. A link should list the incoherences and the proposed
    I have such a list and all it takes for me is a simple Excel spreadsheet, used
    to sort the tables and detecting differences between published tables and
    proposed corrections.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 20 2004 - 07:45:37 CDT