RE: The Unicode Standard and ISO

From: Marcel Schneider via Unicode <>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 21:28:23 +0200 (CEST)

On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 15:11:48 +0000, Peter Constable via Unicode wrote:
> > ... For another part it [sync with ISO/IEC 15897] failed because the Consortium refused to cooperate, despite of
> > repeated proposals for a merger of both instances.
> First, ISO/IEC 15897 is built on a data-format specification, ISO/IEC TR 14652, that never achieved the support
> needed to become an international standard, and has since been withdrawn. (TRs cannot remain TRs forever.)
> Now, JTC1/SC35 began work four or five years ago to create data-format specification for this, Approved Work Item 30112.
> From the outset, Unicode and the US national body tried repeatedly to engage with SC35 and SC35/WG5,

The involvement in this decade of ISO/IEC JTC1 SC35 WG5 adds a scary level of complexity unrelated to the core issues.
Andrew West already hinted that the stuff was moved from SC22 to SC35, but it took me some extra investigation to get the point.
As a reminder: The actual SC35 is in total disconnect from the same SC35 as it was from the mid-eighties to mid-nineties and beyond.

> informing them of UTS #35 (LDML) and CLDR, but were ignored. SC35 didn’t appear to be interested
[, or appeared to be interested in ]
> a pet project and not in what is actually being used in industry.

Sorry, I experienced some difficulty to understand and filled in what I think could have been elided.

> After several failed attempts, Unicode and the USNB gave up trying.

Thank you for bringing up this key information.

> So, any suggestion that Unicode has failed to cooperate or is is dropping the ball with regard to locale data and ISO
> is simply uninformed.

That is exact.

So I think this thread has now led to a main response, and all concerned people on this List are welcome
to take note of these new facts showing that Unicode is totally innocent in ISO/IEC locale data issues.

If that doesn’t suffice to convince missing people to cooperate in reviewing French data in CLDR,
they may be pleased to know that I try to keep helping do our best.

Thank you everyone.

Best regards,


> Peter
> From: Unicode On Behalf Of Mark Davis ?? via Unicode
> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 6:20 AM
> To: Marcel Schneider
> Cc: UnicodeMailing
> Subject: Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO
> A few facts.
> > ... Consortium refused till now to synchronize UCA and ISO/IEC 14651.
> ISO/IEC 14651 and Unicode have longstanding cooperation. Ken Whistler could speak to the synchronization level in more detail, but the above
statement is inaccurate.
> > ... For another part it [sync with ISO/IEC 15897] failed because the Consortium refused to cooperate, despite of
> repeated proposals for a merger of both instances.
> I recall no serious proposals for that.
> (And in any event — very unlike the synchrony with 10646 and 14651 — ISO 15897 brought no value to the table. Certainly nothing to outweigh the
considerable costs of maintaining synchrony. Completely inadequate structure for modern system requirement, no particular industry support, and scant
content: see Wikipedia for "The registry has not been updated since December 2001".)
> Mark
Received on Sun Jun 10 2018 - 14:28:52 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jun 10 2018 - 14:28:53 CDT