The Unicode Standard and ISO

[Michael Everson via Unicode]

On 7 Jun 2018, at 20:13, Marcel Schneider via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 May 2018 00:29:36 +0100, Michael Everson via Unicode responded:
>> 
>> It would be great if mutual synchronization were considered to be of benefit.
>> Some of us in SC2 are not happy that the Unicode Consortium has published characters
>> which are still under Technical ballot. And this did not happen only once. 
> 
> I’m not happy catching up this thread out of time, the less as it ultimately brings me where I’ve started 
> in 2014/2015: to the wrong character names that the ISO/IEC 10646 merger infiltrated into Unicode.

Many things have more than one name. The only truly bad misnomers from that period was related to a mapping error, namely, in the treatment of Latvian characters which are called CEDILLA rather than COMMA BELOW.

> This is the very thing I did not vent in my first reply. From my point of view, this misfortune would be 
> reason enough for Unicode not to seek further cooperation with ISO/IEC.

This is absolutely NOT what we want. What we want is for the two parties to remember that industrial concerns and public concerns work best together. 

> But I remember the many voices raising on this List to tell me that this is all over and forgiven.

I think you are digging up an old grudge that nobody thinks about any longer. 

> Therefore I’m confident that the Consortium will have the mindfulness to complete the ISO/IEC JTC 1 
> partnership by publicly assuming synchronization with ISO/IEC 14651,

There is no trouble with ISO/IEC 14651. 

> and achieving a fullscale merger with ISO/IEC 15897, after which the valid data stay hosted entirely in CLDR, and ISO/IEC 15897 would be its ISO mirror. 

I wonder if Mark Davis will be quick to agree with me �� when I say that ISO/IEC 15897 has no use and should be withdrawn. 

Michael Everson