Re: Encoding localizable sentences (was: RE: UTC Document Register Now Public)

There's also noather issue: your proposal now uses identifiers that will be
resolved in a registry database you are the only one to control. There are
other competing registries for storing images, logos, and so on.
Finally your registry does not exist for now, or nobody else than you uses
it. And why would Unicode delegate a part of the encoding process to you
only and only for your specific registry? How many chracters would Unicode
need to encode to use other registries?

There's already working standards for using registries in an open
competition : domain names, or URL fragments, or URI schemes for URNs. And
they don't require any addition of characters in Unicode for domain names
or URIs to be encoded in documents.

2013/4/23 William_J_G Overington <wjgo_10009_at_btinternet.com>

> On Monday 22 April 2013, Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm always suspicious if someone wants to discuss scope of the standard
> before demonstrating a compelling case on the merits of wide-spread actual
> use.
>
> The reason that I want to discuss the scope is because there is
> uncertainty. If people are going to spend a lot of time and effort in the
> research and development of a system whether the effort would all be wasted
> if the system, no matter how good and no matter how useful were to come to
> nothing because it would be said that encoding such a system in Unicode
> would be out of scope.
>
> A ruling that such a system, if developed and shown to be useful, would be
> within scope for encoding in Unicode would allow people to research and
> develop the system with the knowledge that there will be a clear pathway of
> opportunity ahead if the research and development leads to good results.
>
> So, I feel that wanting to discuss the scope of Unicode so as to clear
> away uncertainty that may be blocking progress in research and development
> is a straightforward and reasonable thing to do.
>
> William Overington
>
> 23 April 2013
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 23 2013 - 04:38:34 CDT