Re: on proposed new Arab script characters for African lanugages (n3882)

2011/8/13 Ken Whistler <kenw_at_sybase.com>:
> If a proposed character (or script or collection of symbols) is marked
> in yellow or green in that table, there is still a chance to provide
> feedback
> and potentially influence an encoding decision. But once a proposed
> character reaches ISO Stage 6 in that table (signaled by the
> table entry turning to white), it is too late -- the character in question
> has passed its ballotting and is part of the standard(s).
>
> At this point, regarding the dammas in question, it is a matter
> instead of providing appropriate documentation of equivalence
> (or non-equivalence) in use and explaining when one might want
> to use one variant or another in text.

And the main problem of this pipeline is that it does not even give
the links to the detailed proposal, and characters in this "pipeline"
table are almost impossible to indentify from there (and most often,
they are not even completely listed).

Adding links to the formal proposals in this table is a necessaity
(it's impossible to correlate this list with the list of numbered
documents, without having to read all these documents completely, and
many of them are transitory, unapproved, or just early research
works).

The only point where we get the details is when Unicode publishes a
beta preversion of the UCD, at which time it is already too late to
change things, except possibly technical or editorial
errors/contradictions with the already discussed proposals.

So if you are not a member of UTC, and do not have access to the
details of agendas prior ballots, you won't know what to do with this
pipeline, and what is being discussed only between UTC members and ISO
NB's, and very few external experts contacted by them.

-- Philippe.
Received on Mon Aug 15 2011 - 12:48:31 CDT