Date: Mon Dec 29 2008 - 03:54:26 CST
Quoting "Erkki I. Kolehmainen" <email@example.com>:
> I'm looking forward to seeing positive results coming out of this well
> before the next WG2 meeting in Dublin.
> On the issue of Zhuang Han, I don't think that the statement on the IRG and
> SC2 and its WG2 is correct.
I certainly hope the progress is quicker, though I fear they are close
to the truth.
BTW that was 3 years for WG2 and SG2 placed together.
> Erkki I. Kolehmainen
> Tilkankatu 12 A 3, FI-00300 Helsinki, Finland
> Puh. (09) 4368 2643, 0400 825 943; Tel. +358 9 4368 2643, +358 400 825 943
> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
> Lähettäjä: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> Puolesta Doug Ewell
> Lähetetty: 29. joulukuuta 2008 1:53
> Vastaanottaja: Unicode Mailing List
> Aihe: Zhuang Han (was: Re: Emoji survey)
> <vunzndi at vfemail dot net> wrote:
>> The [Zhuang Han] proposal first has to go though a national approval
>> process, this involves a number of department and takes several years.
>> Submission is then to the IRG, approval here may well take 7 years,
>> then 3 or more years to go get through WG2 and SG2.
> This took me by surprise too. Is it typical for the IRG to spend 7
> years to process a proposal that is being actively pursued?
> I'm aware that some proposals have taken 10 or more years, such as Old
> Hungarian and Egyptian hieroglyphics, but usually these are proposals
> that have sat around for a significant percentage of that time, waiting
> for additional information, interest, or funding. No proposal that is
> well defined and actively supported should take 10 years.
> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
> http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST