From: Sinnathurai Srivas (sisrivas@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 12:58:15 CDT
Dean Synder wrote,
It could, however, change rather quickly if several
> international stake-holders simply paid for full membership in the
> Unicode Consortium and also became involved in the ISO 10646 efforts
> through their national standards bodies. Basically this would take
> money, expertise, and time. Given those ingredients, however, you could
> effect real change.
>
What about a language that has no Government to tame the ISO?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Snyder" <dean.snyder@jhu.edu>
To: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>; <asadek@st-elias.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 1:50 PM
Subject: No Subject
> asadek@st-elias.com wrote at 8:30 PM on Wednesday, July 6, 2005:
>
>>From: "Kenneth Whistler" <kenw@sybase.com>
>>
>>> Asking again isn't going to turn one up.
>>
>>Do you expect me to know there is none before asking and being told so?
>>Thank you for confirming this absence at the UTC and its apparent veto to
>>have this proposal passed to the WG2.
>>
>>> The presentation of a proposal to a standards committee isn't like
>>> an application for a license from a government agency (or something
>>> similar), for which the applicant has some kind of legal entitlement
>>> and rights to appeal and rights to explicit provision of reasons
>>> if the application is turned down.
>>
>>Pity, as this is not a small point but deals with a major point and
>>would avoid repetitive discussions like this one.
>>
>>>
>>> Your task, instead, would be to create a consensus within the
>>> character encoding community (and the implementing information
>>> technology companies) that the existing Arabic encoding is so
>>> flawed that it requires introduction and implementation of
>>> a competing, distinct textual representation in Unicode.
>>> That, sir, is a *very* high mountain to climb, at this point.
>>
>>Especially, if I will have not even right to know why it would not be
>>accepted!
>>
>>I was just asking questions and hoped to see written rationales (as these
>>would be more complete and self-contained that the general overview you
>>quickly mentioned above).
>>
>>I can't say the tone is very inviting.
>
> Ashraf, I completely agree with and support your sentiments expressed
> here. You have rather quickly discovered the elitist, exclusionary, and
> at times, downright nasty mentality of many in the Unicode/ISO 10646
> community. Part of it stems from hubris, part from fatigue, and part
> from the simple fact that this has become such a close knit, almost
> incestuous community. There is a real need for substantial amounts of
> new blood in this group; unfortunately I don't see that happening
> anytime soon. It could, however, change rather quickly if several
> international stake-holders simply paid for full membership in the
> Unicode Consortium and also became involved in the ISO 10646 efforts
> through their national standards bodies. Basically this would take
> money, expertise, and time. Given those ingredients, however, you could
> effect real change.
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Dean A. Snyder
>
> Assistant Research Scholar
> Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
> Computer Science Department
> Whiting School of Engineering
> 218C New Engineering Building
> 3400 North Charles Street
> Johns Hopkins University
> Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
>
> office: 410 516-6850
> cell: 717 817-4897
> www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi/
> http://users.adelphia.net/~deansnyder/
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 12:59:16 CDT