Possible L2 discussion about SC22/WG20 matters:
Approve Sandra as the US candidate for convenor (INCITS, CT22, JTC1 TAG)
No specific activity anticipated
I have been the back-up editor – the US might want to nominate a back-up editor
I am the editor, we should ensure continuance – this TR will need updates.
N926 shows the options to either revise the complete TR or, with a NP, only the table in Annex A. Currently I tend to favor the “complete revision” – even if the table is electronically available, the standard needs to point to the current table in the text of the standard, and the Annex will be new every time.
I believe, that identifiers should be restricted to BMP characters, no surrogates should be used. This will make updates of this TR less frequent. Synchronize with Unicode major releases, presently with 3.0.
I also suggest that the result of the SC22 plenary ad-hoc session about new data types for Unicode should be added to the appropriate section of the TR in due time.
Ask Ken to explain his conditions for his work on the Annex A – table format, electronic availability, introduce “ID_Continue property” and resolve the inclusion of the following two letterlike symbols:
U+2118 SCRIPT CAPITAL P (which is really the Weierstrass symbol)
U+212E ESTIMATED SYMBOL
I would like to submit a document for WG20 review before the WG20 meeting. WG20 can then decide how to progress it to DTR ballot or, with an NP, for a FPDAM ballot of the Annex only. The draft document is at http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/2405-tr10176-2002.pdf
Continue supporting Alain with preparation of the table so that UCA and 14651 give the same results.
Let’s see what the ballot result is. Hope it is dead.
N899 is the ballot result, the project is dead. Only Norway wants to continue, Canada did not vote, France abstained. Sweden (an O member) commented :
"Withdraw but make sure that a new work item on this subject is started again as soon as possible."
My recommendation is that WG20 ignore/reject that comment. If Sweden persists, a NP needs to be prepared and submitted to SC22 and JTC1 for approval – this can take 2 years.
Japan had offered to host the next meeting long time ago. Not participating any more, Maki has asked me to take Japan out of the list of hosts. The US was the backup – we might have to find a host for this small meeting, unless we co-locate WG20 with the SC22 plenaries (before or after the SC22 meeting).
If WG20 agrees with co-location with SC22, we should make sure that we don’t have to meet again in 2002. August/September 2003 is early enough for the little work needed.
WG20 is still on the hook to organize the next CLAUI meeting.
We can, of course, argue that we invited the meeting, but had to cancel because no document nor agenda point was submitted to WG20. Our interpretation was that WG20 is therefore off the hook and SC2 is next.
The only group interested seems to be SC35. V2, the INCITS group for assistive technology might apply to be the TAG for SC35 in the future, Bill LaPlant is the chair of V2.
===================================================================
That is all I know of at this time – I am sure, I will remember something later. I’ll let you know.
Arnold