Re: [CSSWG] Public Review Issue #184 on UTS37 - Unicode Ideographic Variation Database

On 07/27/2011 05:46 PM, fantasai wrote:
> For the record, the following was sent on 25 July 2011 by the CSSWG to Unicode
> as an official public review comment.
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jul/0518.html>

Here is the response:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: PRI 184
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 18:27:28 -0700
From: Ken Lunde
To: fantasai
CC: Stephen Zilles, John Daggett

On behalf of the UTC, I would like to thank the W3C CSS Working Group for submitting comments about PRI 184 (Proposed Udate 
UTS #37). All of the PRI 184 comments were thoroughly discussed during last week's UTC meeting that was held at Microsoft's 
headquarters in Redmond, WA, specifically on Wednesday (August 3rd) starting at 2PM.

After thorough discussion, which included all comments received, the 10th paragraph of Section 2 was changed to the following:

> If there are sequences that correspond to the same glyphic subset, it becomes a burden for implementers, which can make a collection less likely to be implemented. As a result, in an effort to minimize the number of sequences that correspond to the same glyphic subset, registrants are strongly encouraged, but not required, to share sequences where sequences in a submission are similar to those in an existing collection. Furthermore, as part of the registration process, the registrar shall alert the registrant to the potential of sharing sequences. The sharing of sequences across collections may occur if there is mutual agreement among the registrants for the affected collections.

One of the comments received requested that this paragraphed be removed in its entirety, but in the end it meant striking a 
balance between respecting an IVD registrant's desire to effectively make their IVD collection private/closed and the ability 
of UTS #37 to allow (and, in some cases, strongly encourage) the sharing of sequences across IVD collections. In other words, 
the decision rests with the IVD registrants.

To this end, the UTC will consider, for a future revision to UTS #37, language that can be used to better identify or specify 
the glyphs and how they differ from the standard or prototypical form. Of course, one difficulty is that the standard form for 
CJK Unified Ideographs depends on two factors: regional and diachronic. The standard form can depend on the region or locale, 
and also on the time, as exemplified by the JIS X 0213:2004 changes that affected the standard form of nearly 175 CJK Unified 
Ideographs as they are used in Japan.

About the CJK Compatibility Ideograph issue, it will be raised to WG2, and a document will be submitted to be discussed during 
the next WG2 meeting.

With best regards...

-- Ken

Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 01:31:29 UTC