Time to correct some facts. The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper. National bodies are always welcome to try to transpose and translate an ISO standard. But unless this is done by the ISO Sub-committee (SC2 here) itself, this is not a long-term solution. This was almost 15 years ago. I should know, I have been project editor for 10646 since October 2000 (I started as project editor in 1997 for part-2, and been involved in both Unicode and SC2 since 1990).
Now to some alternative facts: >Since ISO has made of standards a business, all prior versions are removed >from the internet, >so that they donʼt show up even in that list (which Iʼd used to grab a free >copy, just to check > the differences). Because if they had public archives of the free standards, > not having any >for the pay standards would stand out even more. >This is why if you need an older version for reference, you need to find a >good soul in > the organization, who will be so kind to make a copy for you in the archives > at the > headquarters. OK, yes, the old versions are removed from the ISO site. Andrew has probably easier access to older versions than you through BSI. He has been involved directly in SC2 work for many years. The 2003 version is completely irrelevant now anyway and again was not done by the SC, there was never a project editor for a French version of 10646. >The last published French version of ISO/IEC 10646 — to which you contributed >— is still available on > Patrickʼs site: > >http://hapax.qc.ca/Tableaux-5.0.htm The only live part of that page is the code chart and does not correspond to the 1064:2003 itself (they are in fact Unicode 5.0 charts, however close to 10646:2003 and its first 2 amendments), I am not sure the original 10646:2003 (F), and the 2 translated amendments (1 and 2) are available anywhere and are totally obsolete today anyway. Only Canada and/or Afnor may still have archived versions. >(Iʼd noticed that the contributorsʼ list has slightly shrinked without being >able to find out why.) > The Code Charts have not been produced, however (because there is actually no > redactor‐in‐chief, as already stated, and also because of budget cuts the > government is not in > a position to pay the non‐trivial amount of money asked for by Unicode for > use of the fonts > and/or [just trying to be as precise as I can this time| the owner of the > tooling needed). A bunch of speculation here, never was a 'redactor-in-chief' for French version, Unicode never asked for money because first of all it does not own the tool (it is licensed by the tool owner who btw does this work as a giant goodwill gesture, based on the money received and the amount of work required to get this to work). In a previous message you also made some speculation about Apple role or possibility that have no relationship with reality. >Having said that, I still believe that all ISO standards should have a French >version, shouldnʼt they? You are welcome to contribute to that. Good luck though. On a side note, I have been working with the same team of French volunteers to revive the French name list. So, this may re-appear in the Unicode web site at some point. Because I also produce the original code chart (in cooperation with Rick McGowan) for both ISO and Unicode it is a bit easier for me (although non-trivial). It also helps that I can read the French list :-). But the names list is probably as far as you want to go, and even that requires a serious amount of work in term of terms definition and production. Michel
