The scope of Unicode (from Re: How can my research become implemented in a standardized manner?)

[Mark E. Shoulson]

It's nice that you've written proposals.  I suppose the various groups 
will pick it up and get back to you as they usually do.  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.

I have no idea why deposition with the British Library is in any way 
significant or even relevant.  It's nice to mail documents to people who 
will save them, yes.

You ask about these same questions often.  Often enough that some have 
been banned as topics of conversation here.  You've been doing it for 
years.  "Can the scope of Unicode change?" you ask. At this point, I 
suggest that you act as if the answer is "No!" and move on, without 
trying to force Unicode to become a partner in your research.  Even if 
the answer is "Maybe" it's not the kind of thing you can be *sure* will 
happen.  You need to proceed in a way that doesn't depend on other 
things beyond your control.

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.

You can't proceed with your research without a multinational standards 
committee changing *its entire scope and outlook* just to accommodate 
you?  Then you're going about research wrong. "Unicode and the 
International Standard with which it is synchronized are the standards" 
you say?  Obviously not, since Unicode has said that it doesn't encode 
what you want.  So it is NOT the standard for the things you want to use 
it for.  It's the standard for other things.

Do doctors insist that the WHO completely change its focus so their 
research can be included?  Other researchers the world over are doing 
their thing without asking ISO, Unicode, ANSI, DIN, or the IAEA for that 
matter change to suit them.  I have not heard of other cases like this, 
which doesn't mean there aren't any, but it probably means there aren't 
many, and I haven't heard any standards organizations announcing changes 
based on requests like this, either.

This is not the standard you were looking for.  Find another or make 
your own (or both), like a responsible researcher and scientist.

~mark

On 10/22/2015 05:21 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote:
> Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>> Unicode isn't doing what you want?  Make your own standard.  Make it standard for *your* stuff.  Get people to like it and use it.
> Unicode and the International Standard with which it is synchronized are the standards.
>
> I submitted a rewritten document on Monday 19 October 2015.
>
> The document is available on the web.
>
> http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/a_preliminary_proposal_to_encode_two_base_characters.pdf
>
> It is linked from the following web page.
>
> http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/library.htm
>
> The document has been deposited, as an email attachment, with the British Library for Legal Deposit and a receipt received.
>
> Here is a link about Legal Deposit in the United Kingdom.
>
> http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/legaldeposit/index.html
>
> William Overington
>
> 22 October 2015
>
>
>