From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 08:03:31 CDT
At 14:44 +0200 2004-05-20, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>From: "Michael Everson" <everson@evertype.com>
>> >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
Errors are errors. The RA-JAC had an opportunity to review all the
tables. Do not blame me alone. People err. People have kindly pointed
out discrepancies.
>(most probably because you forgot to consult the relevant sources to
>check that your document were correct;
Don't presume.
>I note that you are taking some freedom with you own decisions,
>regarding Coptic and the removal of Georgian (Asomtavruli) coded
>"Geoa").
I have (properly) proposed the addition of Coptic (and some other
scripts) to the JAC. Asomtavruli was removed for good reasons. Live
with it. It will be reinstated in due course.
>I have read it and that's why I propose corrections...
And that's why I am communicating with you, to get relevant feedback.
The only delta we are going to deal with is the one between the
plain-text documents; it is that which is going to be considered
authoritative and which will be used (somehow) to generate the other
tables.
>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...
Nonsense. I am not ashamed. It was a hell of a lot of work getting
that standard together. It is, as you have pointed out, difficult to
maintain different tables by hand.
>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").
It does NOT matter, Philippe. The corrections are being made.
>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.
No. This is purely cosmetic. Let us move on.
>A link should list the incoherences and the proposed changes. 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.
The only delta we are going to deal with is the one between the
plain-text documents; it is that which is going to be considered
authoritative and which will be used (somehow) to generate the other
tables.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 20 2004 - 08:04:13 CDT