From: Andrew S (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 14:11:28 CST
> (1) This is the Unicode discussion list, not a discussion list for
> criticizing WG2 for its decisions.
Is this the correct discussion list for stating criticisms of WG2 decisions for the purpose of obtaining clarifications on the criteria and precedent which WG2 will use for future decisions?
Note that I'm not agitating for the change of any decisions which have been made; I'm simply asking for explanations.
> a. Dr. Ken Whistler: The US national body is strongly opposed to do
> this. The use of existing Latin characters is so prevalent that it
> will disrupt everything.
> b. Mr. Erkki Kolehmainen: I am surprised at the expressed requirement.
> c. Mr. Michael Everson: This is a remarkable proposal for
> disunification and will invalidate oceans of existing data. We should
> not accept duplicate encoding.
That it will "disrupt everything" and "invalidate oceans of existing data" I still don't understand. No current Unicode program will be disrupted by the inclusion of any new characters in the Unicode standard. Nor will any existing data be invalidated. (Nor will any non-Unicode programs or data be disrupted or invalidated; they are immune to WG2 decisions, even if WG2 were to decide to break all existing Unicode programs and invalidate all existing Unicode data by scrapping all existing characters and starting over from scratch.) If I propose the inclusion of my favorite cartoon drawings as Unicode characters, and even propose assigning them the numeric values 3, pi, and 42, and WG2 approves them, no Unicode program will be broken, since no Unicode program is required to understand any new characters (or even any particular existing ones).
So I don't understand your argument at all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 14:13:00 CST