The Public Reviews are organized for relevant items, for which there is a great deal of expressed interest. In my opinion and recollection, your proposal doesn't qualify for this.
Sincerely, Erkki I. Kolehmainen -----Original Message----- From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of William_J_G Overington Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:49 AM To: unicode@unicode.org; Mark E. Shoulson Subject: Re: Overloading Unicode On Saturday 5 June 2010, Mark E. Shoulson <m...@kli.org> wrote: > It isn't and should not be the Unicode Consortium's job to sort > through incoming ideas and decide which ones are nifty enough to > encode. > Unicode isn't here to make your dreams come true. It's here to encode > what's there and to enable people to do what they've already been > doing, not what you think it would be cool if they did. Well, in between the items you mention, there is the possibility of encoding what is becoming there as a result of a Public Review and research and development activity by whoever chooses to participate and enabling people to do in a standardized way what they are finding during the Public Review and research and development process that they can do. I am hoping to submit a document to the Unicode Technical Committee in the hope that the Unicode Technical Committee will institute a Public Review. I feel that the possibility of the Unicode Technical Committee instituting such a Public Review would be increased if there were support for such a Public Review to take place. I feel that a Public Review conducted by the Unicode Technical Committee would be a good way to decide whether to encode a portable interpretable object code into Unicode. William Overington 7 June 2010
