Re: Relationship between Unicode and 10646

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Mon Nov 29 2004 - 16:50:03 CST

  • Next message: Kevin Brown: "Spammed by a list member!"

    On 27/11/2004 06:29, John Cowan wrote:

    > ...
    >>But formally these other bodies do have the right to
    >>outvote Unicode, and in effect to force Unicode to reverse its decisions
    >>- or else to reverse its policy of maintaining compatibility.
    >Formally, yes. However, by acts of self-abnegation, WG2 has a fixed
    >policy of not overriding the UTC or vice versa.
    But what happens when a proposal put forward by the UTC is rejected by
    voting members of WG2, which are ISO member bodies worldwide? For
    example, I note from
    that the latest proposed amendments to 10646 have been approved by only
    6 of 31 voting members and disapproved by 5, with 7 abstentions and 13
    votes not received after the deadline. Now it may be that the issues
    which caused the votes against will be resolved; and I don't know what
    the voting rules are, whether the 6 votes are enough for approval as
    they are more than the 5. But this certainly shows that it is by no
    means certain that ISO member bodies will approve amendments proposed by
    the UTC.

    So what does WG2 do? Does it follow its fixed policy of agreeing with
    the UTC despite negative votes? Does "self-abnegation" trump democracy?
    Or is the UTC put in the position that it is forced to retract or amend
    its proposals?

    Presumably also UTC members could decide to reverse their policy on this
    one as well. And with new voting members joining a rather small group,
    you never know what might happen.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 29 2004 - 16:56:21 CST