The Unicode Standard and ISO

Marcel Schneider via Unicode unicode at
Fri Jun 8 16:28:23 CDT 2018

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 13:33:20 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> There's no value added in creating "mirrors" of something that is successfully being developed and maintained under a different umbrella.

Wouldn’t the same be true for ISO/IEC 10646? It has no value added neither, and WG2 meetings could be merged with UTC meetings.
Unicode maintains the entire chain, from the roadmap to the production tool (that the Consortium ordered without paying a full license).

But the case is about part of the people who are eager to maintain an alternate forum, whereas the industry (i.e. the main users of the data) 
are interested in fast‐tracking character batches, and thus tend to shortcut the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC2 WG2. This is proof enough that applying 
the same logic than to ISO/IEC 15897, WG2 would be eliminated. The reason why it was not, is that Unicode was weaker and needed support 
from ISO/IEC to gain enough traction, despite the then‐ISO/IEC 10646 being useless in practice, as it pursued an unrealistic encoding scheme.
To overcome this, somebody in ISO started actively campaigning for the Unicode encoding model, encountering fierce resistance from fellow 
ISO people until he succeeded in teaching them real‐life computing. He had already invented and standardized the sorting method later used 
to create UCA and ISO/IEC 14651. I don’t believe that today everybody forgot about him.


More information about the Unicode mailing list