Re: VS: Submitting Proposals (was: Re: Proposal to include CE Mark)

From: Andrew West (
Date: Mon May 11 2009 - 04:44:34 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: VS: Submitting Proposals (was: Re: Proposal to include CE Mark)"

    2009/5/11 Erkki I. Kolehmainen <>:
    > Proposals that have been submitted from WG2 to SC2 for balloting are
    > routinely accepted as such by a somewhat smaller set of the same
    > participants in SC2. Thereafter they are regularly changed by ballot
    > comments, i.e., following the ISO procedures. Prior processing by the UTC
    > does/would reduce the need for these changes.

    Or in some cases increase the need for changes at the ballot stages.
    It is not, as Erkki seems to be implying, the purpose of WG2 to rubber
    stamp UTC decisions.

    The best policy is for proposals to be submitted to both the UTC and
    WG2 at the same time, which is normally the case for proposals from
    experienced proposers, but it does not matter too much if a proposal
    is only submitted to the UTC (as most novice proposals are) or only to
    WG2 (as many NB proposals are), as they will still be seen by both

    In my experience (although I admit that I have never attended a UTC
    meeting) experts on particular scripts under consideration are more
    likely to attend WG2 meetings (as NB or invited experts) than they are
    to attend UTC meetings, so WG2 meetings are usually the best place to
    sort out difficult issues with particular proposals. So for example,
    at the recent WG2 meeting at Dublin the Chinese delegation included
    experts on NĂ¼shu, Jurchen and Tangut, so we were able to have
    constructive ad hocs on these scripts, which I doubt would be the case
    at a UTC meeting. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, the UTC
    may well be the best place to discuss issues involving character
    properties and such like.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 11 2009 - 04:46:36 CDT