RE: Everson's Ahom proposal

Dear Tulasi,

This makes no sense at all!

A number of experts, including Mr. Everson, both inside and outside the Unicode Technical Committee and the Working Group 2 of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2, are known to work in excellent cooperation on character encoding. I fail to see what kind of an impact you are seeking to achieve with your recent statements.

Sincerely, Erkki I. Kolehmainen

Lähettäjä: tulasi [mailto:tulasird_at_gmail.com]
Lähetetty: 25. kesäkuuta 2011 17:11
Vastaanottaja: John H. Jenkins
Kopio: Unicode; unicode_at_yahoogroups.com; Mahesh
Aihe: Re: Everson's Ahom proposal

Can you please post the new proposal link, thanks

And if the proposal needed additional work,
why Unicode Inc did not contact Michael Everson for over a decade?

Did Michael Everson follow-up with Unicode Inc?

Thanks,

Tulasi

From: John H. Jenkins <jenkins_at_apple.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: Everson's Ahom proposal
To: Unicode Discussion <unicode_at_unicode.org>

Per the Pending scripts page on the Unicode Web site (http://www.unicode.org/pending/pending.html):

"Review Input Requested: For these proposals [including Ahom], the UTC is seeking expert feedback to assist in completing the proposals to the level where a well-formed encoding can be technically evaluated, and where there can be reasonable assurance that at least the basic repertoire is presented concisely and completely in a manner consistent with the encoding practices of the committees."

In general, neither WG2 nor the UTC is comfortable encoding a script if only encoding experts (e.g., Michael Everson) are involved. Scripts are intended to represent the needs of user communities, and it's really those communities and other experts in the script itself who need to follow through to make sure a script gets encoded. Michael (and other people) are experts in the WG2 and UTC processes and can help the user communities navigate those processes. The UTC and WG2 have learned, however, that unless actual users of a script are involved, it's just too likely that there will be mistakes made which are difficult to correct later.

And no, it wouldn't have been encoded any faster if it had been submitted to ISO instead of Unicode. All scripts are encoded via a cooperative process involving both.

On 15 Jun, 2011, at 5:22 AM, tulasi wrote:

> Everson's Ahom proposal
> http://www.evertype.com/standards/tai/ahom.pdf
>
> It seems Michael Everson submitted this proposal to Unicode (Incorporate/Consortium) at least a decade ago.
>
> Why is it taking so long to get it approved?
> Is Michael Everson following up with this incorporate/consortium?
> Can you update what have you gotten why is it yet to be approved?
>
> Would this proposal had been approved long ago should it had been submitted to ISO directly instead of Unicode Incorporate?
>
> I am trying to explore the truth here :)
>
> Thanks,
> Tulasi
>
> From: Michael Everson <everson_at_evertype.com>
> Date: Sun, May 29, 2011 at 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Lao Script Block - Missing Letters
> To: unicode Unicode Discussion <unicode_at_unicode.org>
>
>
> On 30 May 2011, at 01:05, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > This is not true. The Universal Character Set is intended to be universal.
> > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
>

=====
井作恆
John H. Jenkins
jenkins_at_apple.com
Received on Sun Jun 26 2011 - 01:06:31 CDT