Re: [idn] Re: [JET-member 464] Re: Fw: Re: new members invitation

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

I must be very bad at expressing myself or someone have reading my mails
in a way he choose to interpret. So let me put it blantly:

1. I did not say TC/SC is an economy issue. Someone else did.

2. I did not say TC/SC is not an technical issue. Someone suggested I
did.

3. "I am saying that IETF is an engineering group which consider
   technical trade-off, not economy ones.

I suspect someone is can twist these fairly simple point again of
course, for example, since "I did not say TC/SC is not an technical
issues" => "I say TC/SC is an technical issues" => "TC/SC is within
scope".

I am not sure about others folk here but I find this childish game very
tiring. This is my last email on this.

-James Seng

> It may not be apparent, but the question is SC/TC in the protocol or
in
> some other mechanism, e.g., the way the UTC want it. Someone, you
pick,
> wrote that this wasn't a technical question. I think that person
erred.
>
> I want my registries to interoperate with other registries, the point
of
> an IETF, for things (labels, keywords, etc) which use code-points from
> a common reference that are associated with "CJKV".
>
> Everything else, with the exception of bidi, appears to be vastly
easier.