On Monday 15 April 2013, [email protected] <[email protected]>
wrote:
> This change has been made to increase public involvement in the ongoing
> deliberations of the UTC in its work developing and maintaining the Unicode
> Standard and other related standards and reports.
On a point of order.
I refer to a document entitled How to Submit Proposal Documents.
http://www.unicode.org/pending/docsubmit.html
There is a section headed as Rejected Documents, which starts as follows.
quote
The Unicode Consortium may decline to accept, and may remove from the registry,
any document that is found to be inappropriate or out of scope.
end quote
Suppose that a member of the public sends a document that seeks discussion by
the Unicode Technical Committee about whether the scope of what Unicode encodes
should be extended in some particular regard, with the member of the public
writing about why he or she considers that such an extension of the scope of
Unicode could usefully be implemented.
Will such a document be rejected by the secretariat without being added to the
registry and with no opportunity for the Unicode Technical Committee, in a
committee meeting, to consider the contents of the document?
The question is posed generally as a point of order.
I do have two particular reasons for asking.
1. The rule of widespread prior usage being necessary (except for new currency
symbols).
With modern electronic media and communication, prior usage would imply lots of
Private Use Area legacy data becoming produced before formal registration is
considered. There are reasons for caution in adding new characters, yet should
there be some flexibility so as to encourage individual artists to produce
designs, such as symbols to help people and such as new emoji, that could be of
interest and could become available in fonts?
2. My research.
There is a document entitled locse027_four_simulations.pdf available from the
following forum post.
http://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?p=16264#p16264
I would like to place before the Unicode Technical Committee a document that I
am drafting that is 3 pages of A4 in length that seeks to make the case for
expanding the scope of Unicode so that my invention could become implemented as
I think that encoding such items is probably outside of the present scope of
Unicode yet I suggest that allowing such encoding could be a useful development
of Unicode.
Am I able to make the case to the Unicode Technical Committee and for the
Unicode Technical Committee to consider that case before making a decision?
William Overington
19 April 2013
