Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote: > Neither the committees (nor the editors - if I may add that) are mere > automata, nor are they juries in the anglo-saxon sense (limited to > consider the law in light of what evidence is formally brought before > them). Rather they are populated with many highly intelligent, > knowledgeable, and astute individuals, who generally have the > interests of the larger user community in mind. The committees and > their editors also have access to many volunteers some of whom may > take it upon themselves to do the research and dig out any evidence > that was missing in the original proposal (and in the process correct > any obvious errors).
All well and good, but I'm thinking of submissions that claim up-front not to contain any new precomposed characters or presentation forms, then proceed to do exactly that, on the basis that some font or newly approved character set includes them and "we been waiting too long for industry support." That's not a matter of insufficient research or typographical errors, it's a matter of deception. But I suppose you're right, the relevant committees are filled with intelligent and enlightened experts who will consider each proposed character on its own merits or demerits. I suppose that's really what we need and should hope for. Certainly they have done an excellent job so far. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
