From: "Peter Constable" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf > > Of Philippe Verdy > > > I updated my own Excel sheet at: > > Philippe, I really appreciate the content you posted for it's potential > value in guiding the RA in doing a better job with their data. > > I hope, however, that you do not plan to leave it online once Michael > has his content corrected. In the long run, it really is unhelpful to > have alternate sources for data. Inevitably, the mirrors get out of sync > as the owners move on to other interests, and inevitably someone points > to the copy, not the source.
In fact what I'll do is to replace that by a JavaScript version, whose source data will be feeded and cached (in the server) from the Unicode normative text file, to generate a Javascript array. The "colored" version was there to help show what I found. Michael said that he will ignore all differences found in the previous HTML files, considering only the text file as the source and adding the missing elements. Since then, there has been no clear justification for the removal of Georgian Asomtavruli (I was told that the two scripts were being disunified in Unicode, and it is already for bibliographic references, and considered distinct by most Georgian readers that can't read it, but can read perfectly the default Mkhedruli script variant with various combinations of diacritics for transliteration, that could not work correctly if written with the Asomtavruli variant). So the 4-letter code has been published for some time, but only with a conflicting 3-digits numeric code. As most users of ISO15924 will ignore the numeric code in most applications, they may already have started to tag their Asomtavruli references with "Geoa" (it was said that it was valid and standard...) instead of Private Use codes (in Qaaa to Qabx). Will they need to revert them? What if documents or books have already been printed in Georgia using the "Geoa" code in their references? Or if this has already been used to feed librarian indices for interchange? May be there was no prior approval of this code and the publication was delayed for later and should not have been published... Oh well... --- Thanks to Michael for the addition of PropertyValueAlias="Common" for Code="Zyyy", and the correction of the incorrect HTML syntax of NCRs. I would have much prefered the absence of line wrap in this code (copy/paste operations by developers will insert an undesirable additional character that may be unnoticed in sources). On the opposite, there was no real need to prohibit line wraps in the Date column.
