From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 17:09:00 CST
Doug's recent post complained about the nature of "precedent" when
applied to character encoding. I think, that complaint was based on a
There are roughly four kinds of initial state when a proposal is made to
encode a certain entity.
If there's a "precedent", that more means entities with similar function
and similar levels of documentation will be admitted in the future with
less discussion about whether that type of entity deserves encoding, but
perhaps discussion of whether the particular proposed entity runs to
type and isn't duplicating anything. That's essentially what's meant.
"No precedent" means that the discussion about justification starts from
scratch. That's certainly the case here.
There's a kind of anti-precedent, when an earlier proposal had
essentially been rejected with prejudice. Later proposals for similar
entities will then be dismissed, unless it can be shown the that earlier
decision doesn't apply (special case) or was wrong and should be
overturned. That requires particularly compelling circumstances, of course.
Finally, there are stability guarantees that outright prohibit the
encoding of certain entities with certain properties.
If a proposal is accepted with the agreement that it doesn't set a
precedent, the no-precedent state continues to apply. Arguments like
"oh, this is an entity just like that one" alone will not be sufficient
to settle the question whether the newly proposed entity is to be
encoded. Justification needs to be based on external, not internal evidence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 17:10:53 CST