From: Edward H. Trager (ehtrager@umich.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 09:49:50 CDT
On Sunday 2005.09.11 09:28:46 +0200, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 22:12 -0700 2005-09-10, Patrick Andries wrote:
>
> >>Um, well, the security issues are your bugaboo,
> >>and they are restricted to a narrow range of
> >>activity vis à vis the UCS.
> >
> >Let's not make things too personal.
>
> I was just saying that security is not the primary raison d'être of the
> UCS.
>
> >You know other people are also concerned and
> >disapprove of duplicating similar-looking and
> >similar-behaving (viz. havings same Unicode
> >properties) combining characters (for instance
> >in a script and in the generic combining
> >characters).
>
> Yes, and your analysis of N'Ko diacritical marks
> was inaccurate. It was based on a faulty analysis
> of N'Ko glyph behaviour and a refusal to accept
> that the set of diacritical marks was a
> self-contained set unrelated in origin, use, or
> form to the generic European diacritics, so that
> a unification was not in order. You took pains to
> try to browbeat the committees into accepting
> your rigid interpretation of what "can be used by
> any script" meant, using that text as a weapon to
> try to make us force an incorrect encoding model
> on N'Ko.
Faulty analysis? Browbeat the committees? Pissing off the entire
N'Ko community? Are you sure any of this is true, Mr. Everson?
Michael, I think whatever personal
dispute that you have with Mr. Andries should be handled off this
public list. Anyone reviewing François Yergeau and Patrick Andries'
document "For A Correct Encoding of N'ko"
(http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/N2949.pdf)
will most likely conclude that their arguments are quite
reasonable and well-documented. There is nothing faulty about them
at all -- Unless you call espousing a viewpoint different from your
own "faulty".
I suspect that the person
actually most pissed off is just you. Probably the committees
take a much less emotional stance when reviewing such things,
or I should *certainly hope* that is the case! I am surprised to see
that Mr. Andries comment "let's not get personal" (regardless of
whether it was appropriate or not) is so successful
in triggering a tirade from you on this public list.
It appears to expose the reality that you have
a bone to pick with Mr. Andries and that's all.
> You pissed off pretty much the *entire*
> N'Ko community, and then you wonder why they were
> content to let me try to answer you. You
> *offended* them. You've ignored *every* attempt
> to get you to listen to the facts about the
> committees' encoding practice: No text in the
> standard specifies that the generic European
> diacritic dot above MUST be used every time a dot
> combines superficially above. Now the relevant
> committees are engaged in a revision of the text
> which you misinterpreted in order to clarify the
> real criteria used, in order to prevent this kind
> of fiasco happening again. Yet your most recent
> discussion papers again are authoritarian,
> invoking text which you have misinterpreted, and
> even saying that when we try to clarify the
> procedures we are doing it retroactively to prove
> the rightness of our "mistake". The fault was
> *your* misinterpretation; if you will listen, you
> may learn how things really get done. But at some
> point you will have to start listening. And with
> regard to the N'Ko community: you owe them an
> abject apology.
>
> Please don't skate in here saying "let's not get
> personal" and then try to slip in reference to
> your agenda as though it were innocent.
> --
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
> PS. N'Ko is under no threat from diacritic
> spoofing because the only diacritics to be
> allowed in N'Ko IDN will be script-specific. I've
> worked hard to get a ban on script-mixing within
> name elements and it looks as though such a ban
> will be adopted in ICANN recommendations, with
> permitted exceptions from time to time (like
> mixing CHK and Hangul).
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 12 2005 - 09:39:01 CDT