From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Sat May 29 2004 - 16:15:45 CDT
On 29/05/2004 13:26, Rick McGowan wrote:
>Peter Kirk wrote...
>
>
>
>>I understand that a revised version of "Final proposal for encoding
>>the Phoenician script [WG2-N2746R]" has been submitted to the UTC
>>and included in the official document register.
>>
>>
>
>Posted Friday night, yes. I insisted on receiving it, and I postponed my
>Friday evening dinner to upload it to the register and announce it.
>
>
I am glad to hear it, and glad that you insisted on receiving it.
>
>
>>Will this document be made public? Or is there an intention to conceal
>>it from the public, or from the user community of the scripts in
>>question?
>>
>>
>
>What an absurd insinuation. I am mortified and demand an apology. I'm sure
>Mr Everson would also demand an apology. The fact that this document was
>posted first to the UTC doc register reflects only my faster-than-light
>reflexes, being the person who insisted most emphatically on a revised
>proposal.
>
>
>
Rick, I apologise to you. You obviously are doing all that is reasonable
to publish this document ASAP. I'm not so sure about apologising to Mr
Everson; I would first like an explanation from him of why this updated
version has not been made available at http://evertype.com/formal.html
along with his other formal submissions. If the explanation is a polite
one that he waits until the proposal is on the WG2 document register
before he adds it to his web page, that will be sufficient.
>>Will this "fullness of time" allow time for interested
>>parties to comment to the UTC and to WG2 before the proposal is
>>discussed by them? I am sure that these committees will want to make
>>sure of this.
>>
>>
>
>I find your tone and insinuations offensive. The "fullness of time" for
>public posting of the document does not necessarily depend on Mr. Everson,
>it depends more on when the WG2 convenor posts the document!
>
>
I'm sorry if I misunderstood the procedure. Mr Everson's tone in his
off-list reply seem to suggest that the paper would be released only
when he saw fit. If I misunderstood him, I apologise.
>
>
>>I am certain that WG2 will not be able to accept any proposal which
>>has not been made public and on which the user community has not been
>>given the opportunity to comment.
>>
>>
>
>You mistake the procedure. One makes a document and submits it to the WG2
>chair, who then is at liberty to post it, or not post it, on the WG2
>website, at his sole discretion. The WG2 website happens to be publicly
>accessible, and posting a document there *is* the act of making public. So
>it is not that WG2 "accepts" only "public" documents; it is that the
>document register of WG2 is open to the public.
>
>
>
Thank you for explaining the procedure, which I had misunderstood.
>>I have also accepted that this particular script should be
>>encoded, but that certain other specific definitions should be
>>made to enshrine within the standard the special close relationship
>>between the various 22 character Semitic scripts.
>>
>>
>
>After a month of rather unpleasant wrangling, it is a relief to hear you
>publicly proclaim that you accept the encoding of Phoenician. Please do
>propose some wording for "other specific definitions" and submit a document
>with your suggestions. You would have at least a year, or two, between the
>time Phoenician is accepted for encoded and the time a block intro to it
>would be published. I'm sure the committee will welcome your input.
>
>
Well, I did state this on the public list at least two weeks ago. It
seems that at last you are reading what I write, instead of assuming my
position from my failure to accept the Everson orthodoxy in its
entirety. But I have also made it clear that I expect more than wording
added to the block introduction. For example, I have proposed
interleaved collation in DUCET. At an appropriate time I will make
formal input along these lines. Indeed I have already drafted something,
but have not submitted it partly because I was waiting for the promised
revised proposal.
>Since you have now concluded that the Phoenician script *should* be
>encoded, a brief statement to that effect submitted to the Unicode online
>Reporting Form would make it into the UTC record, and be appreciated.
>
>
I will make a statement for the UTC record, but it will not be as brief
as you seem to expect.
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 29 2004 - 16:46:31 CDT