I suggest that you create a proposal for the UTC so that it can go on
record; I suspect it will get a favorable reception.
Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org> wrote:
> William_J_G Overington <wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com>
> wrote:
>
> > If Unicode Inc. chooses to impose a moratorium on discussing this
> > development in information technology then Unicode Inc. should say so
> > officially and post a policy document and not have this unfair
> > imposition of a moratorium by a person or persons unknown.
>
> Finally, something on which William and I can agree.
>
> I absolutely agree that UTC -- the technical committee, not the
> corporation -- should issue a formal statement expressing its position
> as to:
>
> 1. Generally, whether novel and untested concepts, particularly those
> for which a sizable body of popular support has not been established,
> are viewed by UTC as suitable and appropriate candidates for encoding in
> the Unicode Standard, on the basis of their perceived future usefulness.
> (I believe this statement has been made already; if so, a reference that
> can be easily cited would serve the purpose.)
>
> 2. Specifically, whether the particular concept that William proposes,
> to encode entities that are not characters into the Unicode Standard on
> the basis of their perceived future usefulness, is viewed by UTC as
> being suitable for and appropriate to the standard.
>
> Whichever position is taken by this statement, pro or con, this list
> should honor it.
>
> > Also, it is not a worn-out topic. It is a wonderful possibility for
> > the future.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
>
>
>
Received on Fri Sep 11 2015 - 12:37:14 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Sep 11 2015 - 12:37:14 CDT