Sarasvati wrote:
All discussions of Phoenician on this list have been declared "closed".
Philippe and others, please discuss Phoenician elsewhere, and refrain
from replying specificaly to Phoenician issues here.
Point of information:
Marc Wilhelm KÃster has set up an e-mail list for the discussion
On 30/11/2004 22:22, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 30/11/2004 19:53, John Cowan wrote:
Your main misunderstanding seems to be your belief that WG2 is a
democratic body; that is, that it makes decisions by majority vote. ...
Thank you, John. This was in fact my que
Philippe Verdy asked:
> What do you think of this answer?
All discussions of Phoenician on this list have been declared "closed".
Philippe and others, please discuss Phoenician elsewhere, and refrain
from replying specificaly to Phoenician issues here.
Anyone who feels the need to further discus
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 30/11/2004 19:53, John Cowan wrote:
Your main misunderstanding seems to be your belief that WG2 is a
democratic body; that is, that it makes decisions by majority vote. ...
Thank you, John. This was in fact my question: will the amendment be
passed automat
Peter,
> This was in fact my question: will the amendment be
> passed automatically if there is a majority in favour, or does it go
> back for further discussion until a consensus is reached? You have
> clarified that the latter is true. And I am glad to hear it.
The relevant applicable clause
John Cowan clarified the JTC1 process:
> The result of a
> "no" vote is that the process loops until all such votes are resolved.
All comments on a formal JTC1 ballot receive a *disposition*.
As far as possible, that disposition is done by committee consensus,
which usually means, in practice, th
On 30/11/2004 19:53, John Cowan wrote:
...
Your main misunderstanding seems to be your belief that WG2 is a
democratic body; that is, that it makes decisions by majority vote. ...
Thank you, John. This was in fact my question: will the amendment be
passed automatically if there is a majority in
Peter Kirk scripsit:
> >There are a number of people, yourself included, who are actively,
> >either maliciously or from ignorance, misrepresenting the relationship
> >between the UTC and WG2, and of the standardization process, under the
> >guise of "innocent" discussion. ...
>
> I have merel
On 30/11/2004 16:42, Peter Kirk wrote:
...
... I do wish to shed bad light on your decision on one particular
item, because I consider that item to be technically incorrect. ...
I should have written:
I do wish to shed bad light on the UTC's and WG2's decision on one
particular item, because I c
On 30/11/2004 14:55, Michael Everson wrote:
At 14:05 + 2004-11-30, Peter Kirk wrote:
...
There are a number of people, yourself included, who are actively,
either maliciously or from ignorance, misrepresenting the relationship
between the UTC and WG2, and of the standardization process, unde
At 14:05 + 2004-11-30, Peter Kirk wrote:
He's a troll. ;-)
Is this ad hominem comment directed at me? In any case please take
all ad hominem comments off the list.
There are a number of people, yourself included, who are actively,
either maliciously or from ignorance, misrepresenting the
rel
At 22:09 -0800 2004-11-29, Doug Ewell wrote:
Maybe they sit down and talk about it?
He's a troll. ;-)
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Peter Kirk wrote:
> But what happens when a proposal put forward by the UTC is rejected by
> voting members of WG2, which are ISO member bodies worldwide?...
>
> So what does WG2 do? Does it follow its fixed policy of agreeing with
> the UTC despite negative votes? Does "self-abnegation" trump
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Peter Kirk
> But what happens when a proposal put forward by the UTC is rejected by
> voting members of WG2...
We cannot categorize what has happened as voting members of WG2
rejecting a UTC proposal. First, what has happened is
On 27/11/2004 06:29, John Cowan wrote:
...
But formally these other bodies do have the right to
outvote Unicode, and in effect to force Unicode to reverse its decisions
- or else to reverse its policy of maintaining compatibility.
Formally, yes. However, by acts of self-abnegation, WG2 has
Message original
Sujet:
Re: Re: Relationship between Unicode and 10646]
Date:
Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:17:34 +0100
De:
Philippe Verdy <[EMAIL PROTEC
From: "Patrick Andries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Enfin, je ne suis plus si sûr que les sociétés américaines considèrent
encore
Unicode comme quelque chose de stratégique, il s'agit surtout d'efforts
individuels
de la part de techniciens passionés dans ces entreprises, passionnés qu'on
laisse
encore f
At 01:26 PM 11/27/2004, Philippe Verdy wrote:
But it's true that the United States have delegated several times their
official international representation to the Unicode Concertium, acting on
behalf of the US government for some decisions or some limited domains
(this is valid because Unicode i
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
> But it's true that the United States have delegated several times
their
> official international representation to the Unicode Concertium,
acting on
> behalf of the US government for some decisions or some limited
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I don't want to go along with Philippe entirely on this, but surely he
must be right on this last point. Formally, Unicode is effectively the
agent of just one national body in this decision-making process.
To be honest, Peter, I never said that Unicode was
Peter Kirk scripsit:
> I don't want to go along with Philippe entirely on this, but surely he
> must be right on this last point. Formally, Unicode is effectively the
> agent of just one national body in this decision-making process.
The Unicode Consortium is not an agent of the USNB, althoug
On 26/11/2004 14:04, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
My impression is that Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646 are two distinct
standards, administered respectively by UTC and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2,
which have pledged to work together to keep the standards perfectly
aligned and in
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
My impression is that Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646 are two distinct
standards, administered respectively by UTC and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2,
which have pledged to work together to keep the standards perfectly
aligned and interoperable, because it would be destructiv
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 13:59
Subject: Relationship between Unicode and 10646 (was: Re: Shift-JIS
conversion.)
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> >> UTF-8 is an encoding of the Unicode character set.
> >
&g
s the ISO/IEC 10646 vote that prevails (so Unicode will have
> to accept this ISO/IEC decision, even if it has voted against it in a
> prior decision).
I'd have to defer to the actual UTC and WG2 members, but my feeling is
that this badly misrepresents the relationship between Unicode an
25 matches
Mail list logo
