Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote: > For example, even though UTC approved the COMBINING RIGHT DOT in > principle, it didn't get added for Unicode 4.0 or the corresponding > ISO edition. If the proposal had been just for that character, the > cost/benefit of squeezing a single character in to enable a given user > community to make progress might have outweighed the reluctance to > last-minute additions. > > With the proposal asking for so much more, it's unclear whether the > COMBINING RIGHT DOT would have satisfied the requesters, so it was put > off until a later day.
That didn't quite answer the exact question I was asking, although it is a very interesting peek into the process and I thank Asmus for it. What I was really wondering is whether deliberate (or reckless) falsehoods on a proposal form can hurt the credibility of the proposal to the extent that it might be rejected, when it might otherwise have been approved if more truthful and careful answers to the compulsory questions were given. For example: It is at least *possible* to imagine a situation whereby WG2 (or UTC) might consider encoding a new precomposed character, under some extraordinary and compelling set of circumstances. Suppose, for this example, that the circumstances really were extraordinary and compelling and not just a hack to get around the short-term inadequacies of rendering engines and all that. Now, imagine two proposals that could be written for this character. In one, the Technical-Justification question about whether the proposal includes any precomposed characters is answered truthfully, and then the proposal attempts to justify encoding the character by explaining the extraordinary and compelling circumstances. In the other, the question is answered "No," denying reality, as if the WG2 (or UTC) members couldn't recognize a precomposed character when they saw one. Would the first proposal be taken more seriously than the second because of the way the T-J question was answered? Remember, both proposals in this example are for the same character. And my question applies to the UTC thought process as well as that of WG2. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
