RE: Ol Chiki character name typo?

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Thu Nov 29 2007 - 00:54:58 CST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "RE: Ol Chiki character name typo?"

    > From: Erkki I. Kolehmainen []

    > The Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC 10646, although separate, have the
    > same repertoire, code points and _­normative_­ character names for a
    > good reason.
    > Nevertheless, this particular problem has now become a non-issue after
    > I spoke this morning with ITTF in Geneva.
    > It is clear to me that we need to have people who work in contact with
    > both organizations and who understand that bureaucratic rules are
    > guidelines, not cast in stone.

    Since Erkki wrote this a couple of days ago, the situation has been considered by parties involved in the editorial / release process from both sides -- Unicode and WG2 -- and it has been decided not to try to coordinate a change in the character name at this late stage. Erkki's initiative has demonstrated that ISO is not a bureaucratic behemoth that always hinders good old Unicode, but it is simply too late in the release cycle for both Amendment 3 and Unicode 5.1 to make a synchronized change without causing a very significant delay.

    As has been stated previously, ample review period for these character names was provided and that milestone ended some time ago. The completion of such milestones affects the development process for multiple standards -- not just Unicode (with numerous data files) and ISO 10646 Amendment 3, but also development on Amendment 4, the draft for the new edition to ISO 10646 (in progress), UCA (UTS#10) and ISO 14651 are all in process and have been assuming that the Amendment 3 character names have been stable for months now.

    As Liaison between the Unicode Consortium and JTC1/SC2, my biggest concern necessarily is good cooperation between the two bodies to ensure that synchronization of the two standards is maintained. While the aim to correct the typo is entirely reasonable in itself and certainly well-intended, coming at this stage in the release of Unicode 5.1 and in the midst of the long-delayed FDAM 3 ballot creates significant potential risks of de-synchronization and of damaging the working relationship. The fix simply isn't worth it.

    My intent in writing this isn't to drag out this discussion. Rather, a concern was expressed off-list that there may be some mistaken impressions that nothing more than ISO bureaucracy stands in the way of doing the right thing. I hope I've conveyed that that one-sided notion isn't valid, and that there are several factors coming from both ISO and Unicode sides that are involved in the decision not to make this changes.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 29 2007 - 00:58:12 CST