From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >and for now the codes are maintainable without>It can't be Unicode's UTC alone, as there are >already codes for bibliographic references that >are not (and will never) be encoded separately >in Unicode,so I suppose that there are librarian >or publishers members with which you have to >discuss, independantly of the work of Unicode, >which should only be the registrar for these >codes. May be there's still no formal procedure,>lots of administration.
Read the standard.
Stop this easy argument (that I find offensive here), you could have read it too before publishing tables with errors
Errors are errors. The RA-JAC had an opportunity to review all the tables. Do not blame me alone. People err. People have kindly pointed out discrepancies.
(most probably because you forgot to consult the relevant sources to check that your document were correct;
Don't presume.
I note that you are taking some freedom with you own decisions, regarding Coptic and the removal of Georgian (Asomtavruli) coded "Geoa").
I have (properly) proposed the addition of Coptic (and some other scripts) to the JAC. Asomtavruli was removed for good reasons. Live with it. It will be reinstated in due course.
I have read it and that's why I propose corrections...
And that's why I am communicating with you, to get relevant feedback. The only delta we are going to deal with is the one between the plain-text documents; it is that which is going to be considered authoritative and which will be used (somehow) to generate the other tables.
Sorry if you think that these sentences are a bit aggressive but for now the RA has made a bad start, and it's mainly because of your work...
Nonsense. I am not ashamed. It was a hell of a lot of work getting that standard together. It is, as you have pointed out, difficult to maintain different tables by hand.
If the publication was preliminary (waiting for comments) it should have been documented as such on the Unicode web site (like for the proposals in Unicode, which pass by a testbed before being listed as "standard").
It does NOT matter, Philippe. The corrections are being made.
For now I suggest an immediate warning in the ISO15924 web pages, explicitly stating that these published tables were in beta, and contain incoherences, which are being corrected.
No. This is purely cosmetic. Let us move on.
A link should list the incoherences and the proposed changes. I have such a list and all it takes for me is a simple Excel spreadsheet, used to sort the tables and detecting differences between published tables and proposed corrections.
The only delta we are going to deal with is the one between the plain-text documents; it is that which is going to be considered authoritative and which will be used (somehow) to generate the other tables.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
