At 10:20 AM 4/20/01 -0400, Dean A. Snyder wrote:
>... the Unicode
>Consortium should only entertain proposals to the standard after ACTIVELY
>seeking the input from the relevant (scholarly) communities - something
>which the ICE and UFU projects are doing for two cuneiform script systems.
>
>And, if it isn't the case now, I would also propose that relevant input on
>proposals should somehow be formally tied to and registered with the various
>proposals themselves. (It would be hard for me to imagine that the rejection
>of the Hieroglyphic proposal by the Egyptological community has not been
>formally associated with the proposal itself.)
Well, this describes pretty well the actual procedures that are followed for
proposals that in the end are successful in becoming additions to the standard.
In other words, in considering the merits of a proposal, the Unicode Technical
Committee seeks out and evaluates precisely this kind of input from the
scholarly
community, before elevating a proposal to draft status and finally accepting
the characters into the repertoire.
This should not be confused with the rights by anyone to submit proposals.
Even premature proposals can be useful in that they can help bring out the
issues and define the work that's needed to arrive at a mature draft, which
can be endorsed by the wider community of scholars and approved by UTC.
A./
