From: verdy_p (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 18 2009 - 14:55:43 CDT
"Kenneth Whistler" wrote:
> > 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.
Isn't that what I wrote, if you had not cut the line just there ?
Well may be I was not very precise about the current status of *this* character, after all I don't participate to
the balloting processes and can't vote, and I don't have access to all the internal discussions that occur between
ISO and UTC full members, with most of them being unpublished, or being quite difficult to follow fro mthe web if
you are not a member
(that's exactly the kind of benefits that full members can get when joining Unicode, according to the Unicode site
itself, not only they may get a voting right, but they are also given acess to discussion tracking documents, and to
internal discussion lists and various communication tools, or can request changes very early in the process even
before the discussion draft documents are published; we don't see most of these internal drafts that are certainly
initially full of bugs or imprecisions and unsolved questions pending replies from other members or from experts
around the world that may need to be seeked and contacted).
Thank you anyway for pointing that Unicode 5.2 beta is also now very advanced in its current stage, I had not read
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 18 2009 - 14:57:21 CDT