From: Elliotte Harold (elharo@metalab.unc.edu)
Date: Sat Apr 01 2006 - 12:38:55 CST
Michael Everson wrote:
> Please see
> http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/n3066r-phaistos.pdf
The following is unclear:
The Unicode Technical Committee looked at a proposal by John Jenkins to
encode it in 1997, and it was “not accepted” at that time. This is not
the same thing as saying that it was “rejected” however. The
UTC does “reject” proposals. What it meant is that the proposal did not
give enough reasons for action to be taken one way or another. In the
nine years since then, interest in the Phaistos Disc has grown, and we
believe that there is good reason now to encode its characters.
Did you mean to say that the UTC does *not* reject proposals, or that it
sometimes does but not in this case? If the former, a word is missing.
If the latter, this seems unnecessary, and reads a little funny. In that
case, I suggest just deleting this sentence.
-- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 01 2006 - 12:57:56 CST