Re: Relationship between Unicode and 10646

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Nov 30 2004 - 10:42:09 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Keyboard Cursor Keys"

    On 30/11/2004 14:55, Michael Everson wrote:

    > At 14:05 +0000 2004-11-30, Peter Kirk wrote:
    >> ...
    > There are a number of people, yourself included, who are actively,
    > either maliciously or from ignorance, misrepresenting the relationship
    > between the UTC and WG2, and of the standardization process, under the
    > guise of "innocent" discussion. ...

    I have merely been asking searching questions, partly from ignorance I
    agree. If you or anyone else considers that I have been misrepresenting
    the relationship, you are free to correct me.

    > ... It is my personal opinion that none of that discussion should be
    > taken at face value, for it seems clear that its hidden agenda is to
    > discredit the expertise of the UTC and WG2 in order to shed bad light
    > on the work we do, whether in general or with regard to particular
    > items in the standardization process.

    The not so hidden agenda is that I wish to clarify what happens now that
    certain parts of the WG2 amendment have been rejected with comments by
    influential ISO members. I wish to ensure that these comments will be
    taken seriously in WG2 discussions. I do wish to shed bad light on your
    decision on one particular item, because I consider that item to be
    technically incorrect. But please don't take technical disagreement as
    an ad hominem matter. I have nothing against you personally, I just
    disagree with you on some technical matters.

    > My comment was, it should be said, intended for Doug Ewell alone, and
    > it was an error on my part to have sent it to the list. My comment was
    > intended to encourage him not to waste his energy on fruitless
    > discussion.

    I accept your apology.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 12:09:02 CST