> The problem with SC22 is that Unicode/L2 has infiltrated it, and tries to > sabotage the cooperation between ISO and IETF, by not having any
"infiltrated"? I respectfully disagree with Doug on this. Certainly SC22 has not been "infiltrated". There are some people from on a particular working group, WG20, that are in support of Unicode, but others who are not. But completely independent of Unicode, the vast majority of the "standards" that were being proposed *to* the WG20 (such as the internationalization API, or 14652) were -- how can I put this most charitably -- of extremely low quality. Look at the negative comments in http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG20/docs/n857-n3261.pdf for example. The only reason, I believe, that it passed -- even as a TR (not a standard), even with huge sections marked as controversial -- was that a number of countries tend to simply vote without reading the text. The one exception is ISO 14651. With a lot of hard work by people on the committee, both those in support of Unicode and those not, the collation standard has turned out well. Mark __________________________________ http://www.macchiato.com ► “Eppur si muove” ◄ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Unicode Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 08:17 Subject: Fw: [idn] Re: IDNA problem statement > FYI > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keld Jørn Simonsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Keld Jørn Simonsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Erik Nordmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 5:06 am > Subject: Re: [idn] Re: IDNA problem statement > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:10:11PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > > --On Tuesday, 15 October, 2002 18:37 +0200 Keld Jørn Simonsen > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 06:06:26PM +0200, Erik Nordmark wrote: > > >> > I would still like it to be called the ISO 10646 repertoire. > > >> > > >> Doing that change to this added text would be very odd given > > >> that that the rest of the document has no mention of ISO > > >> 10646. Thus I think consistency is the overriding concern > > >> here. > > > > > > Is that not a major change from IETF policy? We should mention > > > ISO standards when they are applicable. > > > > Keld, this is an old argument in the IDN WG, and I think ISO > > basically decided to lose it a year or two ago. While, I, too, > > prefer to reference ISO standards where possible, the situation > > here is that the IDN effort needed both a character and code > > point repertoire and a collection of norms about how those code > > points were to be used, compared, etc. My preference, and I > > think that of the IETF generally, would have been to reference > > ISO Standards for all of this but, as you know, the > > complementary "usage" standards did not follow the code point > > ones. Even where TRs exist, ISO generally doesn't like having > > its TRs referenced normatively. > > > > We approached ISO about the problem of the missing standards at > > the JTC1 level and stressed that, if they couldn't respond > > usefully and fairly quickly, we would have to rely on UTC. We > > didn't get a response for a long time, and then, in my opinion, > > were brushed off. And you are all-too-aware what happened when > > we tried to work something with SC22... from my perspective, not > > only did we not get active cooperation, we were deliberately > > insulted by their "agreeing" to something we had previously told > > them (formally and informally) we would not accept. While this > > was going on, the Unicode folks were actively working with the > > WG, inviting IETF participation in their meetings and in > > liaisons with on their Board, and trying to be responsive to our > > needs in their ongoing work. I think they are entitled to > > recognition for those efforts, including having their preferred > > name for the CCS and associated materials used. And, if JTC1 > > wants to isolate themselves from the Internet in this area, and > > to hint that they are doing so because the IETF is just not > > important enough to deal with on a peer basis, I don't see any > > reason to respond by advertising the relevant ISO Standard in > > more than a footnote. > > Could you give me a reference to the approach from IETF to JTC1? > As the liaison officer from JTC1/SC2 with IETF I cannot remember > such a request, so I would like to see it. > > The problem with SC22 is that Unicode/L2 has infiltrated it, and tries to > sabotage the cooperation between ISO and IETF, by not having any > cooperation being done, like delaying liaison or making it in a way that > is unacceptable. And also by having ISO standards in the area > voted down, delayed, or turned into TRs. And then working smoothly with IETF > directly. Their policy sems to be efficient, and this is the behaviour > that you are rewarding, IMHO. > > > Just my opinion, of course. But, if my analysis is correct or > > rings true, the problem you are addressing needs to be raised > > within JTC1, not in this working group or over these documents. > > > > john > > > > >
