Re: [Encoding] false statement [I18N-ACTION-328][I18N-ISSUE-374]

On 2014/09/01 08:31, John C Klensin wrote:
> Andrew (and, by the way, John Cowan),

> I think we have some historically-established ways of doing that
> which we know how to handle.  I'd hate to see us go back to 2022
> and expand that registry but I can also imagine its being an
> interesting (and non-conflicting) solution while waiting for
> Unicode and, if ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2 isn't willing to maintain and
> update that registry, I can imagine several entities who could
> take over.

The registry is 'alive' at http://itscj.ipsj.or.jp/ISO-IR/. The last 
addition dates from 2004 (http://itscj.ipsj.or.jp/ISO-IR/234.pdf).

> If the Unicode Consortium understands and is
> convinced that this has become a serious problem,

This has been a well-known problem throughout the development of 
Unicode. There always was "we haven't done X yet" or "we don't cover Y 
yet". The problem is becoming less serious in the sense that the overall 
number of people affected is decreasing. The problem is becoming more 
serious in the sense that the easy (read well-documented) targets have 
been done.

> perhaps they
> could start conditionally reserving some blocks for
> as-yet-uncoded scripts so at least there could be unambiguous
> migration paths, perhaps via a new subspecial of compatibility
> mappings or providing surrogate-like escapes to other code
> points that would parallel the 2022 system.

There's the private use area(s) for experiments. It's big enough that 
escapes are not necessary at all (thank goodness). But as somebody else 
has already has written, you are strictly on your own.


> If the official Unicode Consortium position were really "people
> should just wait to use their languages until we get around to
> assigning code points and we reserve the right to take as many
> years as we like" and the official WHATWG (much less W3C)
> position were really "if your language and script don't have
> officially assigned Unicode code points, you don't get to be on
> the web" then it is probably time for the broader community to
> do something about those groups.  Fortunately I haven't heard
> anyone who can reasonably claim to speak for any of those bodies
> say anything like that.  If you have, references would be
> welcome.

I'd guess the Unicode position is something like "If you want to use 
Unicode, then you should wait until we manage to assign code points. 
We'll try hard but it will take time." Whether you think that this 
position is the same or different from the above depends on whether you 
care about intent or not.

As for the WHATWG position, I'd like to remind you that the IETF, e.g. 
for IDNA, in essence has the same policy. You also need officially 
assigned Unicode code points.


Regards,   Martin.

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 04:02:05 UTC