From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 - 06:55:45 CST
From: "Asmus Freytag" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I have not checked your file against my data for the FPDAM2, but in terms
> of what will be published in Amd2 and Unicode 5.0 the information
> Phillippe sent out is basically useless.
This is Amd2 document published by WG2 that I used. If this is wrong or
useless, then the WG2 website is wrong or useless too.
> a) a number of characters got added during the last WG2 meeting; these are
> all missing from his list.
OK then the WG2 website is incomplete (it's true that it hasnot been updated
since september. I did not try to say it was up to date and in fact I know
that this is just a draft, and the name of the file clearly states this, as
well as the inner content.
> b) a number of ranges of characters (some quite long) got moved - as a
> result over half of his file does not reflect the actual content of the
> soon to be published amendment.
I know also that the Unicode version of charts sent to the WG2 is outdated,
andstill not synchronized with the WG2 charts. Most notably the new Cuneifom
block (your version of the charts in Unicodeformat is completely different
from the WG2 charts)
> c) a number of characters got renamed.
Yes I know. In fact, out of the list discussed that with Michael Everson.
> The use of (copyrighted) ISO draft documents in the way Phillippe used
> them is highly questionable since AMD2 can no longer be changed and
> therefore the use of this list cannot be considered as having been for
> purposes of standardization.
No questionable thing: the inner content of the file keeps the ISO copyright
for the data, even if the file is in another format not published by WG2. If
there are errors on what the WG2 publishes, it's best to discuss that
publicly, given that these files have been published.
> The official beta information for the Unicode Standard 5.0 can be found at
> PS: the readme in the 5.0.0 folder says: "NOTE: As of this date, the data
> files are provisional only, are incomplete and not fully populated, and
> are subject to further revision without notice, once beta review of all
> the data files gets underway. "
When I sent the file, the beta directory of Unicode 5.0 was still completely
empty (and I verified this fact). Is there something now ?
>> ; ISO/IEC 10646:2003/Amd.2:2005 (E)
>> ; Final Proposed Draft Amendment (FPDAM) 2
>> ; (C) ISO/IEC 2005 – All rights reserved
>> ; This file contains several names lists, each in their own "#@Part".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 30 2005 - 07:17:17 CST