Re: Unicode/10646 History (was Re: [idn] An ignorant question about TC<-> SC)

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

Mark,

Since this is still of the form "people can judge for themselves",

Exactly who, from what group, was, in 1990, participating in the
activity from SMI, and from IBM?

Again, in 1992, for DEC, SMI, and HP.

Well, enjoy revisionism. Personally, I would have offered an appeal to
first-hand knowledge as a theory of knowledge, but that would favor my
views, at least in the area of "unix" standards and vendor involvement.

> As to your examples, you might try to get your facts correct.

I expected you to cite both the rejection of Klingon, without mentioning
how much time was wasted on it, or Runic, Pharonic Egyptian, etc., and to
make a "scholarly defense" of doing Pharonic Egyptian. These are artifical
or dead languages.

RFC 1591 flatly notices the operators of ccTLDs that they "have a duty to
serve the community."

I don't think that means dorking with glyphs Egypt, or from the Yucatan
(although there are way more speakers of Mayan than of Pharonic Egyptian),
nor do I think it means splattering repetoires about as the UTC is likely
to do with Central African (because it uses European-like glyphs -- John
made this point -- his example #1, "Keeping scripts together ..."), but
something along the lines of Y2K outreach across the code-point divide.

We have divergent interests.

Eric

I just found my name in 3.0. I never noticed that. Nothing's perfect.