Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!)

From: Dean Snyder (
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 07:49:29 CDT

  • Next message: Dean Snyder: "No Subject"

    Kenneth Whistler wrote at 12:23 PM on Wednesday, July 6, 2005:

    >> >> 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?

    Judgments about the issue at hand - just read the recent emails in this
    thread and you will know what we are talking about.

    >And to what end?

    Why should you care? What are you hiding?

    But to answer your question - it is primarily the facts of the matter
    that are interesting in supporting a judgment whether or not the ISO
    10646 WG2 is basically a rubber stamp of UTC, and not your bald
    assertions, or anyone else's, to the contrary.

    >> >> - 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.

    If the numbers are so meaningless then why are you so assiduously
    avoiding giving them?

    Methinks thou dost protest too much.

    >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%.

    Your non-answers are merely stonewalling stemming from your reactionary
    position and not from your ignorance of these matters. You, of all
    people, have excellent educated estimates as to what the numbers are,
    but you are unwilling to divulge them because you are afraid they will
    at least appear to support the judgement that WG2 is, by and large, a
    rubber stamp of UTC.

    I also note here the almost deafening silence of others here who could
    address this issue.

    Dean A. Snyder

    Assistant Research Scholar
    Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
    Computer Science Department
    Whiting School of Engineering
    218C New Engineering Building
    3400 North Charles Street
    Johns Hopkins University
    Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

    office: 410 516-6850
    cell: 717 817-4897

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 11:30:11 CDT