From: Markus Scherer (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Feb 16 2007 - 15:54:02 CST
On 2/16/07, Philippe Verdy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> If this technical note (which has moved **back** from a "UTS draft" to a
> simpler "technical note", without the yellow-background comments that were
> present two weeks ago, and that I had recently commented here in this list)
> is to be published by Unicode,
The current version of UTN #6 is simply the last version of it that
was published before the proposed draft UTS #40. When the UTC decided
to withdraw UTS #40, there was nothing automatic to move the text
improvements to the UTN.
I will try to find some time sometime soon to merge the text
improvements that I made for PD-UTS #40 into the format of the UTN.
> then you don't need to ask for why the
> implementation is needed. The need is already given in the technical note
> itself, which cites several usages.
I didn't mean to ask for what the purpose of BOCU-1 was. I was just
curious about where someone felt that one of "my babies" was useful to
> It you think that people must justify their use of the algorithm before
> getting comments about how to implement it, ...
I didn't say that, and I don't think that.
> BOCU-1 (UTN #6, i.e. the basic profile) was not removed, only BOCU was (BOCU
> was described in UTS#40 but now belongs back to the ICU project to which IBM
> has licenced its use; the licencing terms are then those visible in the ICU
> project itself).
Both UTN #6 and PD-UTS #40 specify the very same algorithm, which is a
profile of the general BOCU.
> But then, how can the IBM patent restriction be compatible with the ICU
> licence (which is a X-based licence):
I am not a lawyer and plead complete ignorance on legal issues. My
_understanding_ is that when using ICU, the use of everything in ICU
is covered by the ICU license, while when implementing BOCU-1
independently, the terms in UTN #6 apply.
> The reverting of changes, and the absence of past comments is very
> intrigating. This should have been noted in some history! The simple notice
> that UTS 40 was withdrawn is not enough, because UTN 6 was also reverted.
This will get fixed when I get around to roll the text improvements
from PD-UTS #40 into a new version of UTN #6.
-- Opinions expressed here may not reflect my company's positions unless otherwise noted.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 16 2007 - 15:55:25 CST