Re: BOCU-1 spec

From: Markus Scherer (
Date: Fri Feb 16 2007 - 15:54:02 CST

  • Next message: Richard Wordingham: "Re: Query for Validity of Thai Sequence - Some Points of Information"

    On 2/16/07, Philippe Verdy <> 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 that UTS 40 was withdrawn is not enough, because UTN 6 was also reverted.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.

    Best regards,

    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