On Thu, 17 May 2018 22:26:15 +0000, Peter Constable via Unicode wrote: […] > Hence, from an ISO perspective, ISO 10646 is the only standard for which > on-going > synchronization with Unicode is needed or relevant.
This point of view is fueled by the Unicode Standard being traditionally thought of as a mere character set, regardless of all efforts—lastly by first responder Asmus Freytag himself—to widen the conception. On Fri, 18 May 2018 00:29:36 +0100, Michael Everson via Unicode responded: > > It would be great if mutual synchronization were considered to be of benefit. > Some of us in SC2 are not happy that the Unicode Consortium has published > characters > which are still under Technical ballot. And this did not happen only once. I’m not happy catching up this thread out of time, the less as it ultimately brings me where I’ve started in 2014/2015: to the wrong character names that the ISO/IEC 10646 merger infiltrated into Unicode. This is the very thing I did not vent in my first reply. From my point of view, this misfortune would be reason enough for Unicode not to seek further cooperation with ISO/IEC. But I remember the many voices raising on this List to tell me that this is all over and forgiven. Therefore I’m confident that the Consortium will have the mindfulness to complete the ISO/IEC JTC 1 partnership by publicly assuming synchronization with ISO/IEC 14651, and achieving a fullscale merger with ISO/IEC 15897, after which the valid data stay hosted entirely in CLDR, and ISO/IEC 15897 would be its ISO mirror. That is a matter of smart diplomacy, that Unicode may prove again to be great in. Please consider making this move. Thanks, Marcel
