Sarasvati wrote,
>
> ...and John Cowan replied:
>
> > Advertising on this list is well-known to be absolutely forbidden.
> > I call on Sarasvati to act.
>
> John is correct. Please do not use this list to solicit business.
>
Quoting from a post from Sathia which appeared today on the
Tamil_
Marion Gunn asked:
> Please let me try again to ask about progress made, in that year,
> in re Unicode/10646
The minutes of UTC meetings are a matter of public record and recent
minutes are on-line. So you can find out what was discussed at UTC meetings
back to 1999. Please see:
htt
I think that it's very wise of the Unicode Consortium not to certify or
officially promote any particular implementation. After all, some
programmers are more skilled than others, and some implementations may
not be of the quality one might wish. Or what if a member company
produced a decent imp
Arsa Doug Ewell:
> ...
> Unicode does not create, or even certify or register, implementations of
> its standard. I have been paying attention to Unicode for 10 years now,
> at least casually, and I have never seen anything from the Unicode
> Consortium that gave me the impression they were in th
Marion Gunn wrote:
> I am genuinely curious to know if Unicode still has an unusual company
> structure of only one indian and many chiefs (a US expression, no
> insult), or whether it now, like most IT companies, employs plenty of
> indians and only a few chiefs (directors).
For a small compan
Arsa Kenneth Whistler:
> ...
> This can easily be found by checking current resolutions of WG2.
> Those are also a matter of public record, being open (unlocked)
> SC2 documents. The latest are the resolutions from the Dublin WG2
> meeting:
>
> http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/open/02n3614.pdf
> .
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Marion Gunn wrote:
> I also still want to know about implementaions (Unicode may not consider
> its brief to cover implemenations, the companies which combine to make
> the consortium sure do, and it would be nice of them to say how many
> such implementations are now MES/BMP
At 12:25 +0100 2002-07-24, Marion Gunn said:
>I know ISO/IEC 10646 can not be made any exception to ISO rules
>which demand a review every 5 years,
ISO/IEC 10646 won't need a formal 5-year review, because it has been
under constant development.
>and I would like to know what stage it is at no
For more than a year I have been so busy rebuilding my own company and
juggling community responsibilities and invalid care, that I have had
little time to keep up with Unicode/10646 club activities.
I also have US spam of the nastiest kind running at over 80% of my
e-mails, so I tend to avoid
> I do not feel at all comfortable continuing with this discussion, and
> would prefer to have my questions about Unicode (its staffing levels)
Discussion about staffing levels is not appropriate to this list, but
the current staff is a matter of public record:
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/con
At 13:22 -0400 2002-07-23, John Cowan wrote:
>In the context of an international conference, it is surely the organization
>that one represents that is relevant. Again I raise the example of Mr.
>Everson: did you expect him to wear a nametag saying "Ireland/U.S."?
>Would it have led to anything
I do not understand John Cowan's anger, and I do not take personally his
accusation of racial discrimination, as he is clearly unaware that I
have, for many years, personally fostered/facilitated and even led
multi-racial delegations from Ireland to attend various standardization
bodies, but, if
Marion Gunn scripsit:
> I do not understand John Cowan's anger,
Your words amounted to this: that you boycotted the Unicode Conference
and encouraged others to do the same because you believed Reinhard
Schäler unfit to represent Ireland by reason of his national origin.
As an American and a cosm
At 13:14 +0100 2002-07-23, Marion Gunn wrote:
>Unicode was a worthwhile project - just not worth the thousands per
>year it cost EGT!
It was worth every single penny. I regret not one penny of the
"thousands per year" which were spent between February 1994 and
September 2001 on standardizatio
At 16:13 +0100 2002-07-23, Marion Gunn wrote:
>I do not understand John Cowan's anger, and I do not take personally his
>accusation of racial discrimination
Well, you should. Because they were, however much you want to pretend
that they were not. Basically you said "It was wrong to have so many
Marion Gunn scripsit:
> I wish to invite useful suggestions on short-term IT projects from
> people able to honour confidentiality agreements and understand the
> technical aspects, to work for EGT on a paid or profit-sharing basis.
...and John Cowan replied:
> Advertising on this list is we
On 07/23/2002 07:14:31 AM Marion Gunn wrote:
>> leading edge Unicode implementations. I particularly enjoyed hearing
from
>> a British mobile phone company at the Dublin conference...
>
>Most enjoyable, I'm sure. May we take it that, when Unicode nest visits
>London/Berlin, people from 'Éire/Ir
Marion Gunn scripsit:
> I also believe that (whatever Unicode's usual protocol) it would have
> been smart to reserve the 'Éire/Ireland' designation for Irish experts
> at its Dublin conference, and US/Germany/wherever for speakers of
> different origins, as do other conferences visiting here (ev
Arsa Lisa Moore:
>
> Dear Marion,
>
> After checking the mail lists upon returning from vacation/holiday, I found
> the following comment on the most recent Unicode conference in Dublin
> rather surprising...
I missed reading mail over the wkend myself, Lisa - I was away cavorting
in the provin
Dear Marion,
After checking the mail lists upon returning from vacation/holiday, I found
the following comment on the most recent Unicode conference in Dublin
rather surprising:
When, after all the years of receiving Irish support, I saw
Unicode's
2002 conference in Dublin being ad
At 16:15 +0100 2002-07-22, Marion Gunn wrote:
>Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> >
> > Marion Gunn wrote:
> > >
> > > How many years does it take to get ISO/IEC work item accepted, then
> > > develop the corresponding Standard to publication stage, Ken?
>>
> > In the case of 10646, approximately 10
On 07/22/2002 10:15:37 AM Marion Gunn wrote:
>I do know
>what my company understood itself to be investing in through many
>expensive years of supporting Unicode. It was in the Universal Character
>Set and 10646 Implemenations, which I still hope to see Unicode produce,
>or at least a reasonable
Arsa Kenneth Whistler:
>
> Marion Gunn wrote:
> >
> > How many years does it take to get ISO/IEC work item accepted, then
> > develop the corresponding Standard to publication stage, Ken?
>
> In the case of 10646, approximately 10 years, Marion.
> ...
10 years? And Unicode, after eleven long ye
Dear colleagues,
I was biting my tongue there for a bit, but as this list is both
public and archived, I am afraid that I have little choice but to
respond to Marion Gunn's revisionist history, as it reflects on my
own activities working for the Universal Character Set.
I will begin by remind
Arsa Kenneth Whistler:
> ...
> I think this is a misunderstanding of the self-understood brief of
> the Unicode Consortium. It was ad hoc, certainly, but its purpose was
> not "producing implementations of 10646". The original "Purpose" of
> the Unicode Consortium, as stated in the Bylaws filed in
Marion Gunn wrote:
> The immediate attraction ang great advantage of Unicodes vision was its
> simplicity/focus: after an unsteady and argumentative start, its
> founders committed Unicode to the IMPLEMENTATION of10646, and became
> very specific (loud) about not calling it a STANDARD (note to n
Dear Ed,
Thank you for your lovely long and private e-mail, which I shall not
quote on the list, only referring to its usefulness in prompting me to
write this msg to the list, in supplement to my rather blunt note of yesterday.
EGT was one of the first companies to give (almost) unqualified s
27 matches
Mail list logo
