On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:58:09 +0100, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: > > Marcel, > > You have put words into my mouth. Please don’t. Your description of what I > said is NOT accurate. > > > On 12 Jun 2018, at 03:53, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > > And in this thread I wanted to demonstrate that by focusing on the wrong > > priorities, i.e. legacy character names instead of > > the practicability of on-going encoding and the accurateness of specified > > decompositions—so that in some instances cedilla > > was used instead of comma below, Michael pointed out—, ISO/IEC JTC1 SC2/WG2 > > failed to do its part and missed its mission— > > and thus didn’t inspire a desire of extensive cooperation (and damaged the > > reputation of the whole ISO/IEC).
Michael, I’d better quote your actual e-mail: On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 13:01:48 +0100, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: […] > 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. Now I fail to understand why this mustn’t be reworded to “the accurateness of specified decompositions—so that in some instances cedilla was used instead of comma below[.]” If any correction can be made, I’d be eager to take note. Thanks for correcting. Now let’s append the e-mail that I was about to send: Another ISO Standard that needs to be mentioned in this thread is ISO 15924 (script codes; not ISO/IEC). It has a particular status in that Unicode is the Registration Authority. I wonder whether people agree that it has a French version. Actually it does have a French version, but Michael Everson (Registrar) revealed on this List multiple issues with synching French script names in ISO 15924-fr and in Code Charts translations. Shouldn’t this content be moved to CLDR? At least with respect to localized script names.
