From: verdy_p (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Aug 18 2009 - 13:52:20 CDT
on 17/08/09 "Shriramana Sharma" wrote:
> On 2009-Aug-17 19:21, Arno Schmitt wrote:
> >> So, I think that the more appropriate name that you suggested was
> >> "VEDIC SIGN NON-BREATHING SECTION SEPARATOR", i.e.
> >> with the word "NON-BREATHING" instead of a word that means "breating out".
> > What about NON-INTERRUPTING SECTION-SEPARATOR
> > or NON-INTERRUPTING DOUBLE-DANDA ?
> Erm, thanks people and I'm glad that people are interested in my thread
> but isn't discussing alternative names pointless now that they have said
> they cannot change the official name?
The discussion is not really requesting a name change, but about how an annotation could precise the confusing
meaning of the adopted name (still not official, given that the character is still not officially standardized as
is, but fixed for the rest of the balloting process, until it finally gets either standardized or rejected).
The rest of the standariszation remains for the choice of the representative glyph (not a critical issue at this
step, as it may still be changed after the standardization in both Unicode and ISO 10646 charts), making sure that
the glyph is also free from copyright restrictions incompatible with the requirements of both standards and licenced
accordingly, finding possible conflicts or ambiguities in some contexts where it could be used, determining if other
"similar" characters should be encoded as well to avoid these ambiguities, defining the character properties, and
finally allocating the final code point (currently proposed at 1CD3, without warranty) within some blocks, because
not all the currently proposed characters in the pipe may be adopted, or because further characters are could be
pending standardization, or just to conserve and maintaining the compacity of the now previous encoding space in the
BMP (if only a full column can be kept free and unallocated, it will be left free for future uses).
At this step, the character is only in the state of waiting for comments from various expert groups working on the
same script, and which could not participate in the last ballot at ISO. The name is just used as the normative
cross-reference index during this process, given that the character itself still does not have a final code point
usable for designating the proposal unambiguously. The name is then a symbolic tracker fo these discussions (useful
to track the discussions and index and look for past comments and unresolved issues).
It is also not warrantied that this balloted character will be standardized immediately in the next version (it may
have to wait for several version of ISO 10646-1 and Unicode in order to harmonize it with the rest of the standard
or other pending characters also in discussion, and to eventually propose and adopt several alternative solutions in
case of problems : there may even exist several distinct variants of this character used with distinct
interpretations and possibly with contrasting glyphs for such cases).
If all was finalized, there would not be several coordinated bollating steps in ISO working groups and at the UTC.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 18 2009 - 13:55:16 CDT