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

From: Christopher Fynn (
Date: Mon May 11 2009 - 10:49:36 CDT

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

    I'm glad all this has now been somewhat clarified. I was initially a
    little concerned by the statement "you need to write up a proposal,
    attach the Summary Proposal Form, and submit it to the UTC for
    consideration (and later also WG2)" which seemed to imply that all
    proposals should go first to the UTC.

    Like Andrew I also feel that, with proposals for new scripts, experts on
    a particular script are more likely to attend WG2 meetings - as part of
    a national body or as invited experts - than they are to attend UTC
    meetings. Also I personally think it best when proposals and documents
    are publicly available, as they are when submitted to WG2 as this seems
    more open.

    Since ISO 10646 does not deal with Character Properties the way TUS
    does, I also agree that UTC seems to be the place for that part.

    - Chris

    Michael Everson wrote:
    > On 11 May 2009, at 10:44, Andrew West wrote:
    >> 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,
    > I agree.
    >> 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.
    > I agree.
    >> 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.
    > And I agree.
    > Michael Everson *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 11 2009 - 10:52:19 CDT