Re: Overloading Unicode

From: John H. Jenkins (
Date: Mon Jun 07 2010 - 14:50:44 CDT

  • Next message: John H. Jenkins: "Re: Octal"

    On Jun 7, 2010, at 2:48 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote:

    > 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 don't believe that the UTC will institute a Public Review on this proposal because it is so patently outside the scope of the Unicode Standard.

    > 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.

    If there were support, the possibility might be increased from 0% to 0.001%. But there isn't any support.

    > 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.

    Public Reviews aren't intended to help the UTC decide whether or not a particular proposal is within the scope of the standard.

    Nobody's stopping you from submitting a proposal, but bear in mind that nobody on this list has shown any support for it and you have been told repeatedly by a number of people that it's outside of Unicode's scope. There is absolutely no chance that the UTC will do anything on this proposal other than reject it.

    This really isn't the proper venue to pursue the proposal, and you're wasting your time by doing so. Implement it, get support for it, get it adopted outside of a narrow group of supporters. If there is a *demonstrated* problem that this is a *demonstrated* solution for, then *maybe* the UTC would look at it. Until then, discussing the proposal here is simply tilting at windmills.

    John H. Jenkins

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 07 2010 - 14:51:45 CDT