Date: Wed Oct 31 2007 - 23:29:36 CST
Quoting "John H. Jenkins" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> 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
As far as I can see the present gatekeeper system is
working well enough. The U sources provide a good balance.
> And, fortunately, the IRG is getting more insistent on source and
> provenance information, so they can act as a gatekeeper, too.
I am sure this will help a great deal.
In many respects the problem is the reverse, becuase most researchers
are focused on documents of historical interst these characters are
submitted, whilst less glamorous characters used more recently, or
until this day are often overlooked.
This message sent through Virus Free Email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 23:31:26 CST