On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 15:20:29 +0200, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote: > > A few facts. > > > ... Consortium refused till now to synchronize UCA and ISO/IEC 14651. > > ISO/IEC 14651 and Unicode have longstanding cooperation. Ken Whistler could > speak to the > synchronization level in more detail, but the above statement is inaccurate. > > > ... For another part it [sync with ISO/IEC 15897] failed because the > > Consortium refused to > > cooperate, despite of repeated proposals for a merger of both instances. > > I recall no serious proposals for that. > > (And in any event — very unlike the synchrony with 10646 and 14651 — ISO > 15897 brought > no value to the table. Certainly nothing to outweigh the considerable costs > of maintaining synchrony. > Completely inadequate structure for modern system requirement, no particular > industry support, and > scant content: see Wikipedia for "The registry has not been updated since > December 2001".)
Thank you for correcting as of the Unicode ISO/IEC 14651 synchrony; indeed while on http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Synch_ISO14651 we can read that “This relationship between the two standards is similar to that maintained between the Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC 10646[,]” confusingly there seems to be no related FAQ. Even more confusingly, a straightforward question like “I was wondering which ISO standards other than ISO 10646 specify the same things as the Unicode Standard” remains ultimately unanswered. The reason might be that the “and of those, which ones are actively kept in sync” part is really best answered by “none.” In fact, while UCA is synched with ISO/IEC 14651, the reverse statement is reportedly false. Hence, UCA would be what is called an implementation of ISO/IEC 14651. Nevertheless, UAX #10 refers to “The synchronized version of ISO/IEC 14651[,]” and mentions a “common tool[.]” Hence one simple question: Why does the fact that the Unicode-ISO synchrony encompasses *two* standards remain untold in the first places? As of ISO/IEC 15897, it would certainly be a piece of good diplomacy that Unicode pick the usable data in the existing set, and then ISO/IEC 15897 will be in a position to cite CLDR as a normative reference so that all potential contributors are redirected and may feel free to contribute to CLDR. And it would be nice that Unicode don’t forget to order an additional FAQ about the topic, please. Thanks, Marcel
