Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!)

From: Mark Davis ([email protected])
Date: Wed Jul 06 2005 - 13:36:35 CDT

  • Next message: [email protected]: "Re: Missing capital H from Unicode range (see 1E96)"

    Both committees work together to reach consensus on the repertoire and
    architecture of new characters to be incorporated. Neither committee
    rubber-stamps the other; that completely mischaracterizes the working
    relationship between the two committees.

    ‎Mark

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <[email protected]>
    To: "Bob Hallissy" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
    Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 10:46
    Subject: Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!)

    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Bob Hallissy" <[email protected]>
    >
    > > > Is this decision process transparent and documented?
    > >
    > > See http://www.unicode.org/consortium/utc.html.
    >
    >
    > Well, what are you saying? There is no written documented rationale (this
    is not a minor point!) and these decisions are only debated at the UTC?
    >
    > What about written documented traces of past decisions from the ISO
    corresponding commitee? Is this ISO committee just a rubberstamping
    organisation once the UTC has met?
    >
    > Ashraf Sadek
    > --
    > St Elias Coptic Community
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 13:38:15 CDT