From: John H. Jenkins (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Nov 29 2007 - 11:15:02 CST
On Nov 29, 2007, at 1:55 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 22:54 -0800 2007-11-28, Peter Constable wrote:
>> 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.
> I find it very difficult to imagine that the addition of a single
> letter A to a character name in FDAM 3 would cause a de-
> synchronization problem and damage the working relationship.
One of the lessons it's taken me fifteen+ years as a software engineer
to appreciate is that *any* change, no matter how minor, can have
unintended and unforeseen consequences. From a game theoretic
perspective, the increased potential cost for these consequences means
that it becomes best not to make them.
The downside to leaving the name is that we have yet another
embarrassing bad name that should never have slipped through. Since
we already have a number of these, the cost for not making the change
is relatively low.
The relatively high cost of something bad happening (however
unlikely), contrasted with the relatively low cost of not doing
anything, leaves us in the situation where it is better not to make
It bugs the heck out of me, too, but I can see that it is a
And if nothing else it serves as a salutary reminder that the non-
Unicode experts we bring on board to work on some of these proposals
need to be actively involved in the review process all along the way.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 29 2007 - 11:18:33 CST