On Thursday 16 June 2011, Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org> wrote:
> I assume that the questioner is trying to make a point, or "gather dirt" on the Unicode Standard or the Consortium. Maybe they want to "prove" that the Consortium is unresponsive to user needs or overly fixated on commercial goals, or that the ISO process is inherently better than the Unicode process.
With all due respect, that seems a somewhat unfortunate assumption.
Maybe a student has been asked to produce a report about Unicode, what it is and how it is produced and who produces it and how it started and how it developed into what it is today.
There could be many reasons why someone asks such questions.
The two names Unicode, Inc., and Unicode Consortium are being used. Sometimes when two names are used, it is a two company solution. For example, in England a common approach in steam railway preservation is two companies, one a company with a share structure that owns the property, be it the track bed and stations of a railway some miles in length, or a single locomotive. The other company is a company limited by guarantee with an annual membership fee that runs the activities relating to the property owned by the company with the share structure.
> Maybe it would help if people who ask questions like this about Unicode would explain why they are asking.
That is a good idea; however giving a reason should not, in my opinion, be obligatory if someone is seeking to find out public information.
William Overington
17 June 2011
Received on Fri Jun 17 2011 - 12:35:32 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jun 17 2011 - 12:35:38 CDT