From: Andrew West (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 24 2007 - 14:55:49 CST
On 24/11/2007, James Kass <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> Should U+1C78 be TTUDDAAG like 1C79 and 1C7A?
> > Probably, but it's too late for that to be changed: ...
> That's too bad, then, really. It should be possible to correct naming
> errors up until the time that those names become official. Those
> names won't become official until March 2008 (if then). How could
> correcting an error at this point in time possibly affect any
> stability guarantees? (That question is rhetorical; the answer is
> obviously that it could not.)
The issue here is that the repertoire and character names have already
been fixed in the ISO process, having undergone two rounds of
technical balloting by national bodies, which in the case of Amd.3
involved three separate ballots lasting sixteen months:
PDAM3 (2006-01-06 to 2006-04-06)
PDAM3.2 (2006-06-05 to 2006-09-06)
FPDAM3 (2006-12-01 to 2007-04-02)
Amd.3 is currently undergoing its final FDAM3 ballot (closing
2007-12-24), but technical changes cannot be made at this stage, and I
believe that changing a character's name would be considered a
technical change. Perhaps Peter or Ken can confirm whether this is
correct or not.
Unfortunately the ISO process goes largely unnoticed by those not
directly involved in it, and it is only when the corresponding Unicode
version goes beta that developers and members of the wider Unicode
community start to pay attention, and mistakes such as this come to
light. However, by this time the technical phase of the ISO process is
normally over, and due to synchronisation between Unicode and ISO/IEC
10646, it is too late for Unicode to make any changes to the
repertoire or change any errors in the character names.
I think that mistakes like this are happening with frightening
regularity (remember BRAKCET that Alan Wood found when it was also too
late to do anything about) because some authors of proposals are not
taking full responsibility for their proposals after they have been
accepted for encoding. If all authors of all proposals (whether for
whole scripts or for individual characters) were to go through the
details with a fine-tooth comb at each ballot then surely simple
typographical errors would not get through unchallenged.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 24 2007 - 14:57:42 CST