RE: Relationship between Unicode and 10646

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Mon Nov 29 2004 - 17:55:01 CST

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word"

    > From: []
    On Behalf
    > Of Peter Kirk

    > But what happens when a proposal put forward by the UTC is rejected by
    > voting members of WG2...

    We cannot categorize what has happened as voting members of WG2
    rejecting a UTC proposal. First, what has happened is that voting
    members of WG2 balloted an amendment to ISO 10646. That amendment
    included many items, some proposed by the US, having first been accepted
    by UTC, and some coming from other sources. Secondly, the results of the
    voting do not terminate the process: the voting was not simply yea/nay
    with more nay votes. Rather, both yea and nay votes came with comments;
    all 5 of the negative votes were contingent: the NBs indicated their
    vote would change to positive if comments are accepted.

    So, what will happen? WG2 will meet and work out how all of these
    comments should be resolved so that the amendment can move forward.
    Resolving the issues could mean that something gets changed from what is
    currently proposed. It could mean something gets removed from the
    amendment. It could also mean that nothing whatsoever is changed, but
    that WG2 decides (after discussing together) that each item proposed in
    the amendment should be left as it is.

    As for the impact on the relationship of Unicode to ISO 10646, if WG2
    ends up changing or removing something from the amendment, then UTC will
    have to evaluate those revisions and decide what they want to do.

    One thing to keep in mind: the five NBs that voted negatively did so
    mostly for different reasons (the one proposal that had items of common
    concern to several NBs was N'ko: Canada, Japan and US all commented on
    the apostrophe in the script name). If something is really contentious,
    then WG2 can choose to split up an amendment, making the contentious
    item a separate amendment. If that were to happen, I don't think there's
    anything proposed in amendment 2 that wouldn't eventually get approved
    (after outstanding details had been worked out).

    Peter Constable

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 29 2004 - 17:58:03 CST