On 7 Jun 2018, at 20:13, Marcel Schneider via Unicode <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Many things have more than one name. The only truly bad misnomers from that period was related to a mapping error, namely, in the treatment of Latvian characters which are called CEDILLA rather than COMMA BELOW. > 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. This is absolutely NOT what we want. What we want is for the two parties to remember that industrial concerns and public concerns work best together. > But I remember the many voices raising on this List to tell me that this is > all over and forgiven. I think you are digging up an old grudge that nobody thinks about any longer. > 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, There is no trouble 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. I wonder if Mark Davis will be quick to agree with me 😅 when I say that ISO/IEC 15897 has no use and should be withdrawn. Michael Everson
