From: James Kass (thunder-bird@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Jan 02 2009 - 01:55:48 CST
Peter Constable wrote,
>It's also axiomatic that the data passed through a plain-text
>protocol is plain text, a sequence of abstract characters, however
>that data may have originated at the source or be processed at its
>destination.
>
>> Let's consider the committee as organism for a moment...
>
>I think you're going to great lengths while missing some simple
>realities that UTC sees before it:
>
>- data exchanged in plain-text protocols consists solely of abstract
> characters
...including private use or user-defined characters which
would otherwise be unsuitable candidates for encoding.
>- the goal of the Universal Character Set is to be universal,
>implying (among other things) that any set of characters with
>significant usage in ICT industries must be considered potential
>candidates for encoding
...unless they are unsuited for plain text encoding because
of their very nature.
>
>UTC has been and remains fully aware of the potential quagmires
>that can be encountered by starting to accept arbitrary kinds of
>graphic objects for encoding as characters, and is determined *not*
>to go in that direction.
Then UTC should not be doing so.
>That, however, doesn't remove the aforementioned realities, and
>the way in which certain sectors of the ICT industry have thrust
>a *particular set* of graphic objects onto the world as abstract
>characters.
How does allowing these things in now preclude other ICT industry
sectors from making their own icon sets and exchanging them via
plain-text protocols as private use characters?
>It's as simple as that; no need for elaborate self-preservation
>conspiracy theories.
Then let's dispense with the Machiavellian theories, no matter
how intriguing such plots might be. Let's suppose that instead
of a bunch of committee members sitting around conspiring, their
self-preservation instincts have kicked-in subconsciously and
their conscious minds are behaving accordingly.
>> Who is supporting the proposal? (Committee members unanimously,
>> and a few others.)
No change.
>> Who is opposing the proposal? (Independents, many of whom are
>> unpaid volunteers, or whose livelihood does not depend on the
>> encoding process.)
Substitute prestige for livelihood.
>This is a flame I'll chalk up to frustration. It would be a big
>stretch to suggest that people active in UTC are generally building
>their present and future livelihood on the encoding process.
Frustration is an accurate assessment.
Best regards,
James Kass
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:29:59 CST