RE: Everson's Ahom proposal

This is talking about a decade-old exploratory doc. There is a full proposal that was submitted late last year, so at this point that old doc is no longer especially relevant.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org] On Behalf Of Asmus Freytag
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:21 AM
To: vanisaac_at_boil.afraid.org
Cc: tulasi; unicode Unicode Discussion; Michael Everson; Marion Gunn
Subject: Re: Everson's Ahom proposal

On 6/15/2011 9:41 AM, vanisaac_at_boil.afraid.org wrote:
>
> More to the point, that is not a proposal. Not even close. It should be considered the moral equivalent of ¿red type? on the roadmap - we have some idea of what the character repertoire should be, but all the work needs to be done to get this even considered, let alone approved.
>

There's long been a somewhat informal classification of proposals into "exploratory" and "preliminary" proposals. From what Van writes, it looks like this document is essentially an exploratory proposal. That's the name given to documents that merely serve as a starting point for the work needed to initiate the creation of an actual proposal. A preliminary proposal would be one that offers more information, but where it's clear that some substantial aspects of the proposal still await completion (usually via input from users and scholars of that writing system).

In summary, not every document labeled "proposals" is necessarily in a state that encoding work can start right away. If a proposal is tentative or substantially incomplete, it serves merely as a head-up warning or progress report and the encoding committees will not take any action until it is further along.

A./
Received on Wed Jun 15 2011 - 15:59:07 CDT