From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jul 19 2010 - 17:57:50 CDT
"Tulasi" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > there is no reason why both Unicode and
> > ISO could not nor should not conduct an e-mail vote on
> > Michael's proposal and be done with it.
> I do not recommend haste/rush.
> Michael has uploaded the proposal at mid-night 23:39 HRS.
> What if there were other proposals submitted to Unicode on that day?
> Submitted none is great!
> If not I am afraid, it will raise questions on Unicode's professional-moral.
As long as both the Unicode TC and the ISO WG agree to not allocate
any other character than this one on U+20B9, this is all what is
needed: there is no risk of desynchronization, and there's no
emergency to publish a complete synchronized version of the
Other things like character properties may be anticipated by Unicode
(and does not require any agreement with ISO's WG for most
properties); only the name and the code point to reserve in the
existing block is needed.
The final vote for approving the representative glyph will require
first getting an agreement with the Indian governement that still owns
the exclusive design, until it approves its use by the public and
implementation in fonts and keyboard layouts, and there's no emergency
to synchronize all the rest of the pending proposals waiting for a
Getting such approval for preservation can be made very fast for this
single character, this is not changing the current practices or the
character encoding model as it will be completely simialr to the EURO
SIGN, or the more recently encoded CEDI SIGN or TENGE SIGN or HRYVNIA
The final vote will still be needed (and the formal authorization /
open licencing from India for what is still *their* glyph) in order to
allow updated fonts to be distributed containing the glyph in any
position (even if they are built early withing private proprietary
agreements under restrictive "preview" agreements, including if those
preview fonts are mapping the glyph as a PUA, to make sure that it
won't be distributed to the public.
Anyway, Michael has probably not even defined a new font, or updated
its own fonts for that glyph, and could just have embedde a simple
SVG-rendered or bitmap image in the PDF proposal, without even hinting
it for various small resolutions like in OpenType fonts (this is not
needed for preparing the proposal).
There is enough time for refining the glyph before the synchronization
of repertoires in later versions of ISO 10646 an Unicode.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 19 2010 - 18:01:32 CDT