From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Mon Jul 04 2005 - 20:55:32 CDT
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
On
> Behalf Of asadek@st-elias.com
> How many of these risks are the results of rules (stability pact
> for instance) Unicode sets itself? (Paints itself in a corner or more
> gently makes things more complex for minority user communities)
I'm not aware of any instance in which a UTC decision was made with the
intent to make things more complex for minority user communities. Some
decisions may have, in some way, made things more complex for minority
user communities, but the decisions were made for separate reasons.
The stability policy on normalization was a major factor in the decision
not to adopt encoding of generative Arabic marks. That policy was
adopted by the Consortium because there was strong indication from other
industry bodies, such as the IETF, that such a policy was absolutely
essential for Unicode to be adopted. It was a pragmatic issue, then:
adopting a normalization stability policy removes opportunity to
improve/correct prior decisions, but enables widespread adoption of the
standard, while refusing to adopt such a policy gives freedom to revise
a standard that gets ignored by major sectors of industry (meaning it
has pretty much failed).
Peter Constable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 04 2005 - 20:56:16 CDT