On 4/22/2013 4:27 AM, Charlie Ruland ☘ wrote:
* William_J_G Overington [2013/4/22]:
[...]

If the scope of Unicode becomes widened in this way, this will provide a basis 
upon which those people who so choose may research and develop localizable 
sentence technology with the knowledge that such research and development 
could, if successful, lead to encoding in plane 13 of the Unicode system.
I don’t think your problem is “the scope of Unicode” but the size of the community that uses “localizable sentences.” The Unicode Consortium is prepared to encode all characters that can be shown to be in actual use.

Please submit a formal proposal that can serve as a basis for further discussion of the topic.

I'm afraid that any proposal submitted this way would just become the basis for a rejection "with prejudice". Independent of the lack of technical merit of the proposal, the utter lack of support (or use) by any established community would make such a proposal a non-starter.

In other words "can be shown to be in actual use" is an important hurdle that this scheme, however dear to its inventor, cannot seem to pass.

The actual bar would actually be a bit higher than you state it. The use has to be of a kind that benefits from standardization. Usually, that means that the use is wide-spread, or failing that, that the character(s) in question are essential elements of a script or notation that, while themselves perhaps rare, complete a repertoire that has sufficient established use.

Characters invented for "possible" use (as in "could become successful") simply don't pass that hurdle, even if for example, the inventor were to publish documents using these characters. There are honest attempts, for example, to add new symbols to mathematical notation, which have to wait until there's evidence that they have become accepted by the community before they can be considered for encoding.

Mr. Overington is quite aware of what would be the inevitable outcome of submitting an actual proposal, that's why he keeps raising this issue with some regularity here on the open list.

A./

Reply via email to