Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > But if they say "no, you're out of scope" again, it probably means that > you're out of scope, and submitting another proposal of the same thing will > not make it any more in-scope.
Well, as at the time of writing this post, 11:06 am on Friday morning here in England, the document has neither appeared in the Unicode Document Register nor have I received any reply to my submission > I have no idea why deposition with the British Library is in any way > significant or even relevant. Four reasons. 1. Archiving of my writing for as long as civilization lasts. 2. Conservation so that even if the idea is rejected now by the Unicode Consortium then the document is there for the future when different people may look upon the idea differently. 3. Academic precedence, proof that I wrote about that idea at that time. 4. Proof of prior publication in case someone else at a later date tries to patent the invention with a view to gaining a monopoly. > It's nice to mail documents to people who will save them, yes. Yes. > You want to join Unicode as an official member and try to change its scope from the inside, where you can even vote? Be my guest. Well, as an individual I cannot join as a Full Member, even if I could afford the money. I find it interesting that the Unicode Consortium publishes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in many languages, yet a human being cannot join as a Full Member and have a vote. Interesting. > You can't proceed with your research without a multinational standards > committee changing *its entire scope and outlook* just to accommodate you? Well, not its entire scope and outlook. Just a very small change from what has already been changed for flags so as to allow this localized target display rather than just a direct glyph target display as for flags. The scope was changed for emoji and variation selectors requesting a colourful glyph, the scope was changed this year by undeprecating most of the tag characters and introducing the idea of a base character followed by a sequence of tag characters with the sequence of tag characters derived from another, external to Unicode, standards document. The scope is changed by considering using a base character and a sequence of tag characters for customized in-line graphics. The document is in the Unicode Document Register. So can the scope change for my invention? I suggest that it can if the Unicode Technical Committee wants it to change. The issue is as to whether the Unicode Technical Committee will be allowed to consider that possibility in its meeting. It seems to me that discussion of a new invention should not be rejected solely on a scoping issue when the scoping rules were made before the invention was made. I feel that it would serve no useful purpose for the encoding proposal to be rejected on the grounds of existing scope rules with no opportunity for the UTC as a whole to consider whether it wishes to change scope so that this invention with its wonderful possibilities can proceed. It is not good to try to run in treacle and I do not want to have to be satisfied with trying to develop some vastly underpowered markup-based system. William Overington 23 October 2015
