Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!)

From: Kenneth Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Wed Jul 06 2005 - 14:23:56 CDT

  • Next message: suzanne mccarthy: "Re: Tamil Collation vs Transliteration/Transcription Enc"

    > >> I think it would be interesting to know what decisions ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC2
    > >> and its Working Group 2 have taken that went against recommendations of
    > >> the UTC
    > >
    > >Why?
    >
    > To help form judgments based on data, not assertions.

    Judgments about what? And to what end?

    >
    > >> - can you, or others, name some of the more significant ones?
    > >
    > >Yes.
    >
    > Good.
    >
    > Please list for us here some of the most significant decisions ISO/IEC/
    > JTC1/SC2 and its Working Group 2 have taken that went against
    > recommendations of the UTC.

    I'll cite one obvious example: Arabic Presentation Forms-A, U+FB50..U+FDFB.
    Those were added to 10646 by WG2 against the recommendations of the UTC.
     
    > In addition, since 1992, let's say, give us your best estimate as to the
    > percentage of decisions ISO has made that went against UTC
    > recommendations compared to all the decisions ISO made.

    I don't see how such an estimate could be helpful -- it wouldn't
    reflect the history or purpose of the decision-making regarding
    ISO/IEC 10646 in any meaningful way. Nor is it clear what metric
    you could use for "counting" decisions.

    But if you insist: it is certainly greater than 1% and certainly
    less than 99%, +/- 50%.

    --Ken

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 14:24:47 CDT