The Unicode Standard and ISO
Michael Everson via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Tue Jun 12 10:57:08 CDT 2018
All right, if you want a clear explanation.
Yes, I think the ISO 8859-4 character names for the Latvian letters were mistaken. Yes, I think that mapping them to decompositions with CEDILLA rather than COMMA BELOW was a mistake. Evidently some felt that the normative mapping was important. This does not mean that SC2 “failed to do its part” and it did not cause a lack of desire for cooperation, and it bloody well did not “damage the reputation of the whole ISO/IEC”.
As to ISO 15924, it was developed bilingually, and there was consensus on the names that are there. Last year you suggested a massive number of name changes to the French translation of ISO/IEC 10646, and I criticized you for foregoing stability for your own preferences. When it came to the names in 15924, I told you that I do not trust your judgement, and that I would consider revisions to the French names when you came back with consensus on those changes with experts Alain LaBonté, Patrick Andries, Denis Jacquerye, and Marc Lodewijck. As I have not heard from them, I conclude that no such consensus exists.
ISO 15924 is and ISO standard. Aspects of its content may be mirrored in other places, but “moving its content” to CLDR makes no sense.
> On 12 Jun 2018, at 16:20, Marcel Schneider via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:58:09 +0100, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
>> You have put words into my mouth. Please don’t. Your description of what I said is NOT accurate.
>>> On 12 Jun 2018, at 03:53, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
>>> And in this thread I wanted to demonstrate that by focusing on the wrong priorities, i.e. legacy character names instead of the practicability of on-going encoding and the accurateness of specified decompositions—so that in some instances cedilla was used instead of comma below, Michael pointed out—, ISO/IEC JTC1 SC2/WG2 failed to do its part and missed its mission—and thus didn’t inspire a desire of extensive cooperation (and damaged the reputation of the whole ISO/IEC).
> Michael, I’d better quote your actual e-mail:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 13:01:48 +0100, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
>> 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.
> Now I fail to understand why this mustn’t be reworded to “the accurateness of specified decompositions—so that in some instances cedilla was used instead of comma below[.]” If any correction can be made, I’d be eager to take note. Thanks for correcting.
> Now let’s append the e-mail that I was about to send:
> Another ISO Standard that needs to be mentioned in this thread is ISO 15924 (script codes; not ISO/IEC). It has a particular status in that Unicode is the Registration Authority.
> I wonder whether people agree that it has a French version. Actually it does have a French version, but Michael Everson (Registrar) revealed on this List multiple issues with synching French script names in ISO 15924-fr and in Code Charts translations.
> Shouldn’t this content be moved to CLDR? At least with respect to localized script names.
More information about the Unicode