> >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.
I find this cavalier attitude a bit disconcerting. Errors in the tables are not purely cosmetic. An IT standard is created to support IT implementations, and people have been and will be referring to those tables to create their implementations. Each view of the data should be reliable, and if it is found that it was not, then that needs to be communicated in some way. IMO, it is essential that there be a place on the site for errata. I'm inclined to agree with Philippe: the errata notes should indicate that there were errors in the original tables and what the nature of those errors were. If IDs were misspelled or missing, those should be enumerated. If English or French names were misspelled, I think a general note is sufficient. > >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 Is that document*s* (plural)? I strongly encourage you to maintain *one* master source from which all others are derived. Peter Peter Constable Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies Microsoft Windows Division
