On 10/22/2015 9:54 AM, Rick McGowan wrote:
Personally, I think you're getting ahead of yourself. First, you
should demonstrate that you have done research and produced results
that at least some people find so useful and important that they are
eager to implement the findings. Then, once you have done that, think
about standardizing something, but only after you have a /working
model /of the thing sufficient to demonstrate its general utility.
While I do not speak for the UTC in any way, observations of the
committee over a period of some years have led me to conclude that
they never encode something, call it "X", on pure speculation that
some future research might result in "X" being useful for some purpose
that has not even been demonstrated as a need, or clearly enough
articulated to engender the committee's confidence in its potential
utility.
To the degree that one can make a "general" statement, this pretty much
sums it up - and, as my experience with standards, both as developer and
consumer of them has convinced me, this is absolutely the right approach.
Well-intentioned innovation should not be what drives standards.
"Standard" practice is what should drive them.
Seeming exceptions, such a programming language standards, have a strong
community that works on testing and trying out new language features
ahead of them being added to the language, so that people have a good
idea how they will pan out - but ever there, the occasional feature ends
up being still-born.
What concerns the original question, Rick is absolutely correct. The
scope of the consortium is set by its members. Formally by the full
members, but with an ear to what will make the Consortium strong (that
is attract all classes of members and technical experts).
Originally, of course, there wasn't a Consortium. Just a number or
people working on a common goal. They called themselves the Unicode
Working Group, and developed a complete 700 + page draft, before
deciding on using the Consortium structure as the most appropriate for
their work.
This path, of creating new structure at the end of an informal
collaboration of like-minded people is one of the more successful routes
for new projects and ideas to spread. If an idea or concept is powerful
enough to generate committed interest, then that is a good predictor for
future staying power.
Conversely, if you cannot get people to work with you informally, trying
to "make" some existing formal group accept your ideas isn't going to
lead to any better results.
A./
