From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Aug 18 2009 - 14:35:50 CDT
> on 17/08/09 "Shriramana Sharma" wrote:
> > 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?
and Philippe Verdy replied:
> The discussion is not really requesting a name change,
Actually, it was.
> 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).
[ blather deleted ... ]
> 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.
Philippe has presented some information that in general does apply
to characters early on in the standardization process, at which
time such "warranties" are not given, and indeed names and code
points may change, or a proposed character may be rejected altogether.
He seems to be confused about the status of this *particular*
character, however, which is part of the Amendment 6 processing.
At this point, Amendment 6 is in FDAM ballot. No further technical changes
are allowed, and this is only an up or down last step approval
at the JTC1 level. There is zero chance that that ballot will
fail at this point, given the past approval ballots for Amendment 6.
Furthermore, Amendment 6 repertoire is part of the Unicode 5.2
content, which received final approval for release at last
week's UTC meeting. All of this repertoire is now final,
and the beta directory is in the ongoing process of final
lockdown for what is anticipated as a release date late next
So the original information that the name of U+1CD3 cannot be
changed now was correct. And this is now a matter of deciding
what further annotation in the names list or text could best be
added to describe the identity and use of the character. I
suggest we stick to discussing that latter task.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 18 2009 - 14:37:32 CDT