On 7/11/2011 11:57 AM, Ken Whistler wrote:
On 7/10/2011 4:58 PM, Ernest van den Boogaard wrote:
For the long term, I suggest Unicode should aim for this:
That kind of terminological purity isn't going to occur.
...
The Unicode Consortium has a glossary of terms:
...
But the Unicode Standard is neither a software system nor a protocol
stack,
so trying to apply models appropriate to other realms probably isn't going
to get too far.
...
This much is *already* available. S
...
Unicode 9.0 should claim: Processes will be defined and published in
*UML* 2.0 (for lack of an open standard)
(Background: think UAX #9 Bidi written in a universal -graphic-
language).
This, on the other hand, is not going to happen..... I don't see the
UTC going for that at all.
--Ken
I might have the numbering wrong, or ever the sequence. But not the
main line, is it?
Essentially, as Ken points out, this is not the trajectory that one
would look forward to.
So I would think you're off about what you call the "main line".
Not so coincidentally, I fully agree with his conclusions, as well as
with the reasoning behind them.
A./
