From: John H. Jenkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 31 2007 - 09:10:57 CST
On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:02 AM, email@example.com wrote:
> Though where to draw the line may be difficult in some cases. Would
> the births, deaths and marriages of a newspaper be suffcient? How
> about a credit-card or bank book?
> Newspapers and shop signs are often cited as possible forms of
> evidence, though in some parts of the world there are departments
> that make sure that all shop signs are in the official language [in
> more rural areas where no-one would notice shops tend not to have
> signs anyway], of course if one can be fined for a shop sign, there
> is no need even to ask if there are newspapers!
This is really the issue. At the moment, the UTC has no policy on
when to accept or reject a character submitted to it for possible
encoding, and that means it's the job of the gatekeeper (*ahem*) to
decide. So far, there are only two characters added to the UTC's list
that are out-and-out rejected, and I'm the one who added them in the
first place. By and large this isn't an issue, since the bulk of the
characters in the UTC list come from widely used dictionaries or other
reference works, and I think most people would agree that such are
reasonable sources; but as a rule, I have been erring on the side of
I would certainly support Andrew or anybody else writing up a paper to
form the basis for discussion in the UTC. I don't mind having my
hands tied here. And I would also support setting up a subcommittee
to make recommendations to the UTC each time an IRG submission is due,
so long as the subcommittee doesn't consist of me, myself, and I.
This particular character is too late for submission as part of
Extension D, so there's time to decide what to do.
And, fortunately, the IRG is getting more insistent on source and
provenance information, so they can act as a gatekeeper, too.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 09:13:18 CST