From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jun 05 2010 - 12:42:59 CDT
"Luke-Jr" <luke at dashjr dot org> wrote:
> "Draft" characters would be ones which are not final and can be
> removed or replaced in the future, if they don't in the meantime gain
> popularity within some reasonable timeframe.
There is no precedent for this in either Unicode or ISO/IEC 10646. If
you think it has been difficult persuading people that your characters
should be encoded in the existing framework, just try suggesting a basic
architectural change like this.
>> The IETF distinguishes "draft standards" and "proposed standards" and
>> "full standards," and the result is that the entire computing
>> industry ignores the intended distinction and treats all of these as
>> equivalent to "standard."
> The difference is in how the standards organisation treats them. It
> doesn't matter what the rest of the industry does, since IETF can
> still modify their draft standards before upgrading them to full.
The IETF consists of people from the industry. They are "eating their
own dog food," as they say. There are very few "professional
standardizers" in the traditional sense.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 05 2010 - 12:44:59 CDT