If you want, you can make a proposal to the effect that all proposals made to the Unicode be hosted publicly in a place accessible the unicode site. Then the UTC can consider your proposal.
I think it would help the discussion to provide in your proposal links to policy statements from the W3C, ICANN, etc. that follow that policy. (I'm not sure exactly what you encompass in your term "public standard": for example, would you include ISO in that list, even though people have to pay for (most of) theirs?) Mark Mark On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Asmus Freytag (c) <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/19/2018 9:36 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote: > > The UTC didn't want to burden the doc registry with all the emoji > proposals. > > > The question of whether the registry should be divided is independent on > whether proposals are public or private in nature. > > Proposals in private have no place in the context of public standard. > > A./ > > > Mark > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 4/19/2018 5:32 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote: >> >> > imagine I discover that someone has already proposed the emoji that I >> am interested in >> >> In some cases we've have contacted people to see if they want to engage >> with other proposers. But to handle larger numbers we'd need a simple, >> light-weight way to let people know, while maintaining people's privacy >> when they want it. >> >> >> I would tend to think that actual proposals are a matter of public >> record. Emoji should not be handled differently than other proposals for >> character encoding in that regard. >> >> Why should there be an assumption that these are "proposals in private" >> in this case? >> >> A./ >> > > >
