From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Mar 01 2005 - 23:17:50 CST
So someone plunks down 2.5 million to start a project that depends on a
standard that costs a mere $12,000 to join as a corporate member, yet they
are too busy to join it.
An they depend on other member companies to implement the feature yet did
not engage any of them to find out if they would in fact implement it.
The 2.5 million is gonna be lost soon anyway with such a track record of
decisions behind it.
Just an observation.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Unicode Stability (Was: Re: E0000 Language Tags for Some
> But when 3.1 came out, I plunked down $2.5 million to start a project that
> depends on E0000 tags. And then just some opinion at Unicode changed about
> the cups should be arranged on the shelf. And not even an official removal
> the codepoints to clarify the situation, just "we really don't like
> you'll have to guess whether Microsoft ever actually implements them or
> But if I suggest any small *addition* to Unicode, I'm told it's this
> destabilizing concept that could never happen.
> Just an observation.
> Doug Ewell wrote:
> > Doug <UList at dfa dash mail dot com> wrote:
> > > Sarasvati wants me to not be so sarcastic, so I am going to just ask
> > > simply, is that situation where I have to constantly read up on the
> > > very latest documentation, really in keeping with the idea of Unicode
> > > being inalterable?
> > "Stability" in a standard does not mean that the standard never changes.
> > It means that, as much as possible, it does not change in a way that
> > causes existing implementations or data to break.
> > -Doug Ewell
> > Fullerton, California
> > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 23:17:34 CST