Re: Historical Cyrillic in Unicode

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Mon Aug 22 2005 - 01:11:58 CDT

  • Next message: Donald Z. Osborn: "RE: Questions re ISO-639-1,2,3"

    From: "Peter Constable" <>
    >> Note that the document does not explicitly says it is YOURS. It just
    >> says that YOU were involded, among others, as a SOURCE.
    > "Source" in this case does not mean 'source of the information in the
    > document' but rather 'source of the document'. I.e., it means the
    > authors. Hence, it *does* explicitly say it is Michael's (and the
    > others').

    The term source is not usual for that meaning. Generally the term accepted
    everywhere else is "author(s)".
    Without it, one cannot even know immediately who owns the rights on the
    document: the supplied sources, ISO WG2.

    At first read, I would say that the document is signed by ISO WG2 (the most
    visible reference at top of the document, notably when you see that the
    complete name of ISO is shown so much explicitly in four languages), so if I
    had to copy it somewhere, I would have asked to WG2 (using the general
    copyright policy of ISO) and not necessarily to Michael...

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 22 2005 - 01:15:07 CDT