Variation Sequences (and L2-11/059)

Janusz S. Bień via Unicode unicode at
Wed Mar 13 14:09:04 CDT 2019

On Wed, Mar 13 2019 at  9:48 -07, Ken Whistler wrote:
> On 3/13/2019 2:42 AM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
>> Hi!
>> On Mon, Jul 16 2018 at  7:07 +02, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
>>> FAQ ( states:
>>>      For historic scripts, the variation sequence provides a useful tool,
>>>      because it can show mistaken or nonce glyphs and relate them to the
>>>      base character. It can also be used to reflect the views of
>>>      scholars, who may see the relation between the glyphs and base
>>>      characters differently. Also, new variation sequences can be added
>>>      for new variant appearances (and their relation to the base
>>>      characters) as more evidence is discovered.
>> I'm proof-reading a paper where I quote the above fragment and to my
>> surprise I noticed it's no longer present in the FAQ.
> That text is, in fact, still present on the FAQ page in question:

I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion, I should check it more

>> So my question are:
>> 1. Does the change mean the change of the official policy of the
>> Consortium?
> Your premise here, however, is mistaken. The FAQ pages do *not*, and
> never have represented official policy of the Unicode Consortium.

That I expected but asked just to be on the safe side.

> The
> individual FAQ entries are contributed by many people -- some
> attributed, and some not. They are updated or added to periodically by
> various editors, in response to feedback, or as old entries grow
> out-dated, or new issues arise. Those updates are editorial, and do
> not reflect any official decision process by Unicode technical
> committees or officers. The FAQ main page itself points out that "The
> FAQs are contributed by many people," and invites the public to submit
> possible new entries for editing and addition to the list of FAQs.

BTW, what about copyright of FAQ entries? Do I guess correctly it
belongs to the consortium? To be specific, what about using and entry in
full in English or in translation as or in a Wikipedia entry?

> For official technical content, refer to the published technical
> specifications themselves, which are carefully controlled, versioned,
> and archived.
> For official policies of the Unicode Consortium, refer to the Unicode
> Consortium policies page, which is also carefully controlled:

Thanks for reminding.

>> 2. Are the archival versions of the FAQ available somewhere?


Best regards


Janusz S. Bien
emeryt (emeritus)

More information about the Unicode mailing list