Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:58:09 +0100, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
>
> Marcel,
>
> You have put words into my mouth. Please don’t. Your description of what I said is NOT accurate.
>
> > On 12 Jun 2018, at 03:53, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> >
> > And in this thread I wanted to demonstrate that by focusing on the wrong priorities, i.e. legacy character names instead of
> > the practicability of on-going encoding and the accurateness of specified decompositions—so that in some instances cedilla
> > was used instead of comma below, Michael pointed out—, ISO/IEC JTC1 SC2/WG2 failed to do its part and missed its mission—
> > and thus didn’t inspire a desire of extensive cooperation (and damaged the reputation of the whole ISO/IEC).

Michael, I’d better quote your actual e-mail:

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 13:01:48 +0100, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
[…]
> Many things have more than one name. The only truly bad misnomers from that period was related to a mapping error,
> namely, in the treatment of Latvian characters which are called CEDILLA rather than COMMA BELOW.

Now I fail to understand why this mustn’t be reworded to “the accurateness of specified decompositions—so that in some instances
cedilla was used instead of comma below[.]”
If any correction can be made, I’d be eager to take note.
Thanks for correcting.

Now let’s append the e-mail that I was about to send:

Another ISO Standard that needs to be mentioned in this thread is ISO 15924 (script codes; not ISO/IEC).
It has a particular status in that Unicode is the Registration Authority.

I wonder whether people agree that it has a French version. Actually it does have a French version, but
Michael Everson (Registrar) revealed on this List multiple issues with synching French script names in
ISO 15924-fr and in Code Charts translations.

Shouldn’t this content be moved to CLDR? At least with respect to localized script names.
Received on Tue Jun 12 2018 - 10:20:46 CDT