From: Erkki I. Kolehmainen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jun 07 2010 - 05:38:57 CDT
The Public Reviews are organized for relevant items, for which there is a great deal of expressed interest. In my opinion and recollection, your proposal doesn't qualify for this.
Erkki I. Kolehmainen
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of William_J_G Overington
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:49 AM
To: email@example.com; Mark E. Shoulson
Subject: Re: Overloading Unicode
On Saturday 5 June 2010, Mark E. Shoulson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> It isn't and should not be the Unicode Consortium's job to sort
> through incoming ideas and decide which ones are nifty enough to
> Unicode isn't here to make your dreams come true. It's here to encode
> what's there and to enable people to do what they've already been
> doing, not what you think it would be cool if they did.
Well, in between the items you mention, there is the possibility of encoding what is becoming there as a result of a Public Review and research and development activity by whoever chooses to participate and enabling people to do in a standardized way what they are finding during the Public Review and research and development process that they can do.
I am hoping to submit a document to the Unicode Technical Committee in the hope that the Unicode Technical Committee will institute a Public Review.
I feel that the possibility of the Unicode Technical Committee instituting such a Public Review would be increased if there were support for such a Public Review to take place.
I feel that a Public Review conducted by the Unicode Technical Committee would be a good way to decide whether to encode a portable interpretable object code into Unicode.
7 June 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 07 2010 - 05:43:03 CDT