On 7 Jun 2018, at 14:20, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > A few facts. > >> > ... Consortium refused till now to synchronize UCA and ISO/IEC 14651. > > ISO/IEC 14651 and Unicode have longstanding cooperation. Ken Whistler could > speak to the synchronization level in more detail, but the above statement is > inaccurate.
Mark is right. >> > ... For another part it [sync with ISO/IEC 15897] failed because the >> > Consortium refused to cooperate, despite of repeated proposals for a >> > merger of both instances. > > I recall no serious proposals for that. Nor do I. > (And in any event — very unlike the synchrony with 10646 and 14651 — ISO > 15897 brought no value to the table. Certainly nothing to outweigh the > considerable costs of maintaining synchrony. Completely inadequate structure > for modern system requirement, no particular industry support, and scant > content: see Wikipedia for "The registry has not been updated since December > 2001”.) Mark is right. Michael Everson
