William J.G. Overington asked:
> Suppose that a member of the public sends a document that seeks discussion
> by the Unicode Technical Committee about whether the scope of what
> Unicode encodes should be extended in some particular regard, with the
> member of the public writing about why he or she considers that such an
> extension of the scope of Unicode could usefully be implemented.
>
> Will such a document be rejected by the secretariat without being added to
> the registry and with no opportunity for the Unicode Technical Committee, in
> a committee meeting, to consider the contents of the document?
>
> The question is posed generally as a point of order.
It is quite unlikely that such a document would be rejected on procedural
grounds, just because it was making an argument for a change of scope,
rather than being a proposal that was already clearly in scope. (I assume
that is what you are asking here.)
Arguments about scope are clearly in the scope of topics considered by
the Unicode Technical Committee.
If a document is useful and relevant for the UTC work, it gets posted. The
kinds of things which might *not* be posted are submissions that are very
clearly not useful or relevant: attempts to advertise products, political diatribes
with no technical content, personal ad hominems, misdirected submissions
intended for some other committee or organization, and so forth.
--Ken
Received on Fri Apr 19 2013 - 14:08:32 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Apr 19 2013 - 14:08:34 CDT