I must be very bad at expressing myself or someone have reading my mails in a way he choose to interpret. So let me put it blantly:
1. I did not say TC/SC is an economy issue. Someone else did. 2. I did not say TC/SC is not an technical issue. Someone suggested I did. 3. "I am saying that IETF is an engineering group which consider technical trade-off, not economy ones. I suspect someone is can twist these fairly simple point again of course, for example, since "I did not say TC/SC is not an technical issues" => "I say TC/SC is an technical issues" => "TC/SC is within scope". I am not sure about others folk here but I find this childish game very tiring. This is my last email on this. -James Seng > It may not be apparent, but the question is SC/TC in the protocol or in > some other mechanism, e.g., the way the UTC want it. Someone, you pick, > wrote that this wasn't a technical question. I think that person erred. > > I want my registries to interoperate with other registries, the point of > an IETF, for things (labels, keywords, etc) which use code-points from > a common reference that are associated with "CJKV". > > Everything else, with the exception of bidi, appears to be vastly easier.
