Marion wrote:
> (a couple of boys in a backroom could do it)
I don't agree. Certainly a couple of engineers might come up with
something, and then we'd spend years arguing about the meaning of it all,
sucking everyone into a fruitless discussion.
James Kass wrote...
> On the other hand, if a certification program could represent
> revenue for TUC*, revenue which could be used to further the
> "cause", then who better to judge Unicode compliance?
UTC has discussed the subject of compliance several times and the
consensus seems to be that Unicode shouldn't be involved in "deep"
compliance testing at all. What level of guideline to offer developers is
still up in the air, and UTC is still discussing various issues.
However, my take is that as a revenue stream, it would be a lost cause.
Cost of such development could never be recovered. "The cause" would be
furthered by _NOT_ doing it. As long as we're on the topic of "the
cause"... "the cause" would be more furthered by people becoming involved
in SEI and contributing directly to script encoding efforts:
http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~dwanders/
Rick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Jul 25 2002 - 09:55:50 EDT