Date: Sun May 10 2009 - 06:51:16 CDT
Quoting "Erkki I. Kolehmainen" <email@example.com>:
> As you are well aware, I (we) have wittnessed both expertise and lack of it
> in both the WG2 meetings and at the UTC (although I've never attended any
> UTC meeting). I did not intend to imply that expertise would be concentrated
> in the UTC as opposed to WG2.
> However, since WG2 solely decides what will go out to the National Bodies
> for ballot, it is often beneficial for this decision if a proposal has been
> scrutinized by the UTC eperts. At WG2 there is no automatic acceptance of
> the UTC outcome - nor should there be.
It is best for a proposal to be scrutinized by a wide range of
experts. When a proposal is submitted to the WG2 too close to a
meeting to allow proper scruntiny by all those concerned. If the
requirement was all proposals first go to the UTC this would add an
extra step to the process and hence slow things down. Once a doucment
is posted on the WG2 site it is public and can be scrutinized by
experts both UTC and otherwise. A document submitted to the UTC is
not publically available and therefore gets less scrutiny.
> Sincerely, Erkki
> 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 Michael Everson
> Lähetetty: 9. toukokuuta 2009 10:27
> Vastaanottaja: unicode Unicode Discussion
> Aihe: Re: Submitting Proposals (was: Re: Proposal to include CE Mark)
> On 9 May 2009, at 06:49, Erkki I. Kolehmainen wrote:
>> However, since the UTC meetings precede the WG2 meetings, it would
>> greatly ease and expedite the process in WG2 if the proposals,
>> especially the more complex ones, would already have been
>> scrutinized by the UTC experts.
> No, they do not. Our calendar is cyclical, so something is always
> preceding something else.
>> The required expertise may not be readily available in the WG2
> I really object to this.
> Many, many times we have seen a proposal appear to the UTC which has
> not been properly read or understood by any or many or most of the
> people at a given meaning. This is one of the frustrating things about
> working with the UTC: it has often been the case that someone glancing
> through a proposal for the first time comes up with a fairly daft
> question which scuppers any progress for at least a cycle.
> We did a run-around like this when we proposed to use a Cyrillic
> combining character to be used with Latin letter i for the
> Egyptological yod. Oh no, I was told, you can't use that. No
> information was forthcoming on what I *should* use. So I flew to
> Vienna (at my own expense) to a meeting of computational Egyptologists
> and we went over all the options. They chose to prefer a unitary, non-
> decomposing characters. Oh no, I was told, we don't like that. I had
> to yell at them to get them to understand that we had jumped through
> their hoops and that "oh no" was no solution, and that whether they
> liked our recommendation or not, we were doing our best to find a
> solution within the arbitrary parameters they were setting for us.
> The solution they relented to: To use the Cyrillic combining character
> with the Latin vowel.
> Please, Erkki, do not make it look as though the UTC has expertise and
> that WG2 does not.
> Both committees have experts committed to understanding and approving
> new characters and scripts, even obscure ones. And both committees
> have other experts who have very different concerns, and who take
> little interest in proposals for new additions.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 10 2009 - 06:55:28 CDT