Re: NNBSP

On 18/01/2019 19:02, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 1/18/2019 7:27 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
>> ....I understand only better why a significant majority of UTC is hating French.
>>
>> Francophobia is also palpable in Canada, beyond any technical reasons, especially in the IT industry. Hence the position of UTC is far from isolated. If ethic and personal considerations inflect decision-making, they should consistently be an integral part of discussions here. In that vein, I’d mention that by the time when Unicode was developed, there was a global hatred against France, that originated in French colonial and foreign politics since WWII, and was revived a few years ago by the French government sinking 𝑅𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑏𝑜𝑤 𝑊𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 and killing the crew’s photographer, in the port of Auckland. That crime triggered a peak of anger.
>
> Again, my recollections do *not support* any issues of _Francophobia_.
>
> The Unicode Technical committee has always had French people on board, from the beginning, and I have witnessed no issues where they took up a different technical position based on language. Quite the opposite, the UTC generally appreciates when someone can provide native insights into the requirements for supporting a given language. How best to realize these requirements then becomes a joint effort.
>
> If anything, the Unicode Consortium saw itself from the beginning in contrast to an IT culture for which internationalization at times was still something of an afterthought.
>
> Given all that, I find your suggestions and  implications deeply hurtful and hope you will find a way to avoid a repetition in the future.
>
> May I suggest that trying to rake over the past and apportion blame is generally less productive than _moving forward _and addressing the outstanding problems.
>
It is my last-resort track that I’m deeply convinced of. But I’m thankfully eased by not needing to discuss it here further.

To point a well-founded behavior is not to blame. You’ll note that I carefully founded how UTC was right in doing so if they did. I wasn’t aware that I was hurtful. You tell me, so I apologize. Please note, though, based on my past e‑mail, that I see UTC as a compound of multiple, sometimes antagonistic tendencies. Just an example to help understand what I mean: When Karl Pentzlin proposed to encode a missing French abbreviation indicator, a typographer was directed to argue (on behalf of his employer IIUC) that this would be a case of encoding all scripts in bold and italic. The OP protested that it wasn’t, but he was overheard. That example raises much concern, the more as we were told on this List that decision makers in UTC are refusing to join in open and public discussions here, are only “duelling ballot comments.”

Now since regardless of being right in doing so, they did not at all, I’m plunged again into disarray. May I quote Germaine Tillion, a French ethnologue: It’s important to understand what happens to us; to understand is to exist. ― Originally, “to exist” meant “to stand out.” That is still somewhat implied in the strong sense of “to exist.” Understanding does also help to overcome. That’s why I wrote one e‑mail before:

Nothing happens, or does not happen, without a good reason.
Finding out what reason is key to recoverage.
If we want to get what we need, we must do our homework first.

Thanks for helping bring it to the point.

Kind regards,

Marcel
Received on Fri Jan 18 2019 - 13:33:32 CST