From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Tue Nov 27 2007 - 09:14:54 CST
> From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven [mailto:asmodai@in-nomine.org]
> Without wanting to sound presumptious, but why on earth should we care
> on a
> Unicode list about ISO-specifics? Right now I get this feeling that
> Unicode is
> getting more and more bogged down by ISO routine and bureaucracy then
> focusing
> on Unicode itself.
There is a collaborative working agreement that has existed since Unicode and JTC1/SC2 agreed to synchronize the two standards over 15 years ago. The Ol Chiki characters were approved by UTC over two years ago (2005-11-4) *with the erroneous spelling*. Any Unicode Consortium member has had the opportunity to review all of the relevant documents in the UTC document register throughout that period. The publicly-accessible character pipeline page on the Unicode site (http://www.unicode.org/alloc/Pipeline.html) has been kept up to date in tracking progress through the combined Unicode / ISO process; and relevant ISO documents have been available during those two years (e.g. go to the SC2 doc register at http://lucia.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/itscj/servlets/ScmDoc10?Com_Id=02 and look for N3909).
> If so we might as well get rid of Unicode and do
> everything
> straight through ISO, since there seems to be little use for Unicode as
> group
> in itself then (leaving CLDR and such outside of the argument).
It certainly is not the case that there is little use for Unicode in the character-encoding game. For instance, significant portions of content in the ISO 10646 standard are taken entirely from Unicode.
Again, there is a collaborative arrangement that is working, just as it has for many years. Part of that working arrangement has always entailed that there is a stage in the encoding of a character when the character names and code positions are locked down. For Ol Chiki, that was reached some time ago. The process in place assumes that errors in character names have been identified and corrected by reviewers before that point. In the case of a word like "tuddaag", which is a Romanization of some word in some language unlikely to be known by either most UTC members or ISO national bodies, the process is really heavily relying on the proposal authors or the national body from the country/ies where the script is used having review the documents that get submitted to or come out of JTC1/SC2/WG2, or for the proposal authors to have checked the spellings in their proposal from the outset.
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 27 2007 - 09:16:05 CST