Re: Multiple private agreements (was: RE: Code pages and Unicode)

Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr dot org> wrote:

> Too bad the Conscript registry is censoring assignments the maintainer
> doesn't like for unspecified personal reasons, increasing the chances
> of an overlap.

This isn't censorship, which would imply some sort of political,
ethical, or moral agenda. This is a registrar making a technical (not
an "unspecified personal") decision, which he already explained to you,
not to add something to the registry he maintains.

(For what it's worth, and as you'll remember, I agreed with you about
registering the tonal digits. But Michael is the CSUR registrar, not
me.)

Philippe Verdy <verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr> replied:

> Even the UTC could create its own PUA registry, probably coordinating
> it with WG2, and with the IRG, for experimenting new encodings, or
> working on proposals, helping document the needed features or
> difficulties, and cooperate better with non-technical people that have
> good cultural knowledge, or that have access to rare texts or corpus
> for which there still does not exist any numerisation (scans), or
> whose numerisation is restricted or not financed, and for which it is
> also impossible to create OCR versions.

As Richard said, and you probably already know, there is no chance that
UTC will ever do anything with the PUA, especially anything that gives
the appearance of endorsing its use. I'm just thankful they haven't
deprecated it.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­