From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 - 14:08:23 CST
On 11/30/2005 4:55 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> From: "Asmus Freytag" <email@example.com>
>> 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.
No - this is not the AMD2 its the 'final proposed draft for AMD2', which
is a document that is sent for ballot to WG2 member bodies. The FPDAM
stage allows technical change - and there usually are technical changes
as result of the ballot comments. Therefore this type of document is
basically useless as information on what will be the precise contents of
the published AMD2. Implementers are well advised not to rely on this
>> 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.
The WG2 website is intended as a source of information for people
helping develop 10646, not as a source of information for implementers.
That's a crucial difference.
>> 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 outdated, andstill not synchronized with the WG2 charts.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)
You are referring to the summary of repertoire document. I usually
prepare at least one per WG2 meeting, capturing the best available
information at the end of the meeting for delegates to review. As part
of their review, I may update fonts, or, more rarely, correct the
spelling of names or code locations. My documents have no standing other
than to help me make sure that my data files and fonts correctly reflect
the committee decisions. They are intended for review, not as advance
information for implementers.
>> 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
It is questionable whether you have the rights to duplicate material
copyrighted by someone else without obtaining their permission, or for
>> The official beta information for the Unicode Standard 5.0 can be
>> found at http://www.unicode.org/Public/5.0.0/
>> 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 ?
The location http://www.unicode.org/Public/5.0.0/ contains files with
file stamps as early as Oct 26 2005. Some files are in their 4th
revision (...d4.txt). So, you can't have checked too carefully.
Note that files in that location are the best available *preliminary*
information about 5.0. The information is subject to change, based on
review for correctness as well as further UTC decisions before final
release. Unlike attempts (however well-meaning) to cobble together
information from superseded ballot documents, these files are created by
people who have access to the complete information on UTC and WG2
Nevertheless errors are possible and users are properly cautioned -
however, we encourage everyone to 'play' with these files and test them
for consistency, correctness, etc. and report results using the Unicode
Technical Vice President
The Unicode Consortium
>>> ; 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 - 14:10:24 CST