William J.G. Overington asked: > 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.
It is quite unlikely that such a document would be rejected on procedural grounds, just because it was making an argument for a change of scope, rather than being a proposal that was already clearly in scope. (I assume that is what you are asking here.) Arguments about scope are clearly in the scope of topics considered by the Unicode Technical Committee. If a document is useful and relevant for the UTC work, it gets posted. The kinds of things which might *not* be posted are submissions that are very clearly not useful or relevant: attempts to advertise products, political diatribes with no technical content, personal ad hominems, misdirected submissions intended for some other committee or organization, and so forth. --Ken
