Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!)

From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Wed Jul 06 2005 - 13:36:35 CDT

  • Next message: Lorna_Priest@sil.org: "Re: Missing capital H from Unicode range (see 1E96)"

    Both committees work together to reach consensus on the repertoire and
    architecture of new characters to be incorporated. Neither committee
    rubber-stamps the other; that completely mischaracterizes the working
    relationship between the two committees.

    ‚ÄéMark

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <asadek@st-elias.com>
    To: "Bob Hallissy" <Bob_Hallissy@sil.org>; <unicode@unicode.org>
    Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 10:46
    Subject: Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!)

    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Bob Hallissy" <Bob_Hallissy@sil.org>
    >
    > > > Is this decision process transparent and documented?
    > >
    > > See http://www.unicode.org/consortium/utc.html.
    >
    >
    > Well, what are you saying? There is no written documented rationale (this
    is not a minor point!) and these decisions are only debated at the UTC?
    >
    > What about written documented traces of past decisions from the ISO
    corresponding commitee? Is this ISO committee just a rubberstamping
    organisation once the UTC has met?
    >
    > Ashraf Sadek
    > --
    > St Elias Coptic Community
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 13:38:15 CDT