MINUTES - Malvern


Meeting #21 - Internationalization

October 3, 2001


DATE:                    October 1-3, 2001


TIME:                     9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m


LOCATION:         Unisys
2476 Swedesford Road
Malvern, PA  19355

CONTACT:          Arnold F. Winkler
Tel:  610-648-2055


Web site:     

Hotel information and driving instructions

Map of the hotels near Unisys

Map between Philadelphia Airport and Unisys


1.     Introduction and announcements by Convenor

Arnold explains the logistics.

Arnold announces, that he will not be able to apply again as convenor, when his term is over.

Some people (John Clews, Sandra O’Donnell) would like to call in for specific subjects – we need to define time for these and communicate to them.

2.     Introduction of national delegations, liaisons, and cooperation partners 


Participants at the WG20 meeting in Malvern, October 1-3, 2001



Participating at this meeting:

Alain LaBonté                         Canada

Kyongsok KIM                         Korea (South)

Keld Simonsen                       Norway

Ken Whistler                           USA

Arnold Winkler                       convenor

3.     Appointment of chairperson, secretary, and drafting committee

Arnold will act as secretary. 

Drafting committee:  Keld, Kim

4.     Approval of prior meeting's minutes  [N813]


Minutes Tübingen, May 8-10, 2001

Arnold Winkler


The minutes were amended: 

From N813:  Discussion about the merits of either ordering.  Decision that the order stays as in the table which is the Fuþark order.  Remove “…. which is the Fuþark order.”

Typo:  AIX in agenda item 15, comments Baldev.

Minutes are approved as amended.

5.     Future Meeting Schedule and Plans

2002-05-20/22, Norway

2002, October, possibly Japan; AI Arnold to check with Maki. Possible backup Korea.

May 2003 – Canada.

6.     Recognition of new documents and assignment to agenda items


Proposed disposition of comments for ballot for PDAM #1 for 14651

Alain LaBonté



Proposed disposition of comments to DTR 14652 ballot comments

Keld Simonsen



7.     Approval of Agenda 


Agenda for the WG20 meeting in Malvern,
October  1-3, 2001




8.     Results from the JTC1 meeting in Hawaii


Resolutions from the SC22 plenary in Hawaii
( Resolutions specifically for WG20 )

SC22 N3316


01-30   no action necessary for WG20

01-18   Keld volunteers for liaison to IETF

01-22   Ballot on the update is SC22 level, WG20 will also need an editor for TR 10176. 

01-23   10176 on ITTF web site:  same as 01-22

01-24   Future of WG20 - wait for results, no WG20 recommendation agreed upon

01-25   DTR 14652:  Keld will provide a proposed disposition of comments on October 2, 2001.  This will include the SC22 proposed re-packaging.  There is significant disagreement in what is contentious and what is not.  Kim asks about the relationship between 14652 and 15897?  Arnold (and others) explain the history of this. 

01-26   15435 API:  wait for SC22 letter ballot result.  If the project is canceled, a TR with a description of the functionality can be proposed. 

01-27   secretariat action.

01-28   no input required

01-33   Based on a presentation of Ksar at the SC22 meeting.  No recommendation from WG20.  SC22 needs to take into account, what Java has done for programming languages, as well as scripting languages, etc… Fundamental disagreements must be eliminated to accept 10646 as the generally acceptable character set.  Ken explains a layered approach, Keld goes along with that.  The committees with general language tools are the ones that are interested, not even COBOL.  C and C++ with lots of application development need to take care of 10646, and I18N, and related subjects. 

9.     Liaison Reports

9.1     Additions/deletions/changes to liaisons


List of liaison and co-operations to and from SC22/WG20



9.2     SC22/WG4, COBOL


Using TR 14652 in COBOL 200x

Ann Bennett


This is for information only. 

9.3     SC22/WG5, Fortran

No report

9.4     SC22/WG14, C

Keld:  N830 was forwarded and created lots of e-mail discussion.  Will be further discussed in C and C++ meetings.  Plan for an ad-hoc on character sets in the SC22 plenary next year.

9.5     SC22/WG15, POSIX

New POSIX standard in ballot. 

TR 14766 – guidelines on national profiles and locales.  Resolving PDTR comments.

9.6     SC22/WG21, C++

Keld:  N830 was forwarded and created lots of e-mail discussion.  Will be further discussed in C and C++ meetings.  Plan for an ad-hoc on character sets in the SC22 plenary next year.

9.7     SC2/WG2

No report, nothing to talk about.  Arnold has asked Kimura-san to put the liaisons on the agendas for the upcoming SC2 and SC2/WG2 meetings.

9.8     GUIDE/SHARE Europe

No report, decide to drop the liaison.  Resolution.

9.9     SC35

Alain:  keyboard standards are being updated.  New TR project proposal for evaluation of I18N in software. 

9.10     CEN TC 304

Keld reports about the Price WaterHouse Cooper report – decision on recommendations is outstanding.  Steering group is being formed between CEN and LISA and others. 

Euro-locale workshop created – submitted from SC22 questions if CEN TC304 is an authorized body to register the locales.

9.11     TC37

Will be discussed, when John Clews is connected Tuesday 9:30. 

TC37 met in Toronto in August.  See N866.  TR in preparation for extended language codes.  The task force has no meetings scheduled, only e-mail discussion. 

9.12     Unicode

UTC moved from Baltimore to Mountain View.  Technical items are covered in ballot comments from L2.  Controversial issue :  UTF-8s (now being worked as a proposed draft TR for Unicode).  Unicode 3.2 will be in beta status shortly after the Singapore meeting of SC2/WG2, when the comments to PDAM#1 of 10646 are disposed.  Next book 2003.

9.13     W3C

See SC22 resolutions 01-16, 01-17, 01-18, 01-18a, and 01-28 in N868.  No action.

10.     Review of prior meetings action items  [SD-5]


Action item list



Action items were reviewed, the SD-5 updated.

11.     ISO/IEC TR 10176

See SC22 resolutions 01-22 and 01-23 in N868

A letter ballot for approving the update of TR 10176 was authorized.

The suggestion in N838 was forwarded to ITTF as SC22 N3249, it was not discussed in SC22.  Ken Whistler recommends that the table to be referenced be the Unicode character data base. 

Keld would like to put it into the cultural registry.  Ken speaking for the US indicates that the US would be opposed to that – no versioning and synchronization with other data tables is provided, it also does not fall into the “locales” that people would expect in a cultural registry.  The name “registry” is detrimental to the acceptance by the USA, everybody could register whatever they want.  Ken points out that the US position on comments to 10176, 14652, etc. are unanimous. 

Kim:  discussion about what characters might be used in some languages, but not in others.  Examples are hyphen or underscore, which are allowed in some languages, but not part of the table; and e.g. combining marks that are allowed in Java, but are not part of the 10176 table either. 


12.     International string ordering  ISO/IEC FCD 14651


Draft 14651 tailoring delta for  D P R of Korea

Kent Karlsson



Proposed ISO/IEC 14651 CTT tailoring delta for D P R of Korea [re-order table in text form]

Pak Dong Ki



Comments regarding N867, the DPRK proposed delta file for IS 14651

KIM, Kyongsok



Comments on PDAM #1 for ISO/IEC 14651

Kent Karlsson



Draft ISO/IEC 14651:2001 CTT tailoring delta for D.P.R. Korea – reorder table in plain text format

Kent Karlsson



Summary of voting for the registration and PDAM#1 consideration of ISO/IEC 14651

SC22 N3318



Proposed disposition of comments for ballot for PDAM #1 for 14651

Alain LaBonté


Alain presents his proposed disposition of comments as documented in N882.

Ireland: wants the Runes ordered differently – FuÞark.  US can go along with that.  Ken has to change the relevant section of the table. 

Japan:  placement of the table on the ITTF site. 

JP-1:  Reference to the table must be part of the amendment text – this links the repertoire covered in the standard at hand with the corresponding table.  When we do new additions, the explanation of the previous tables needs to be in the addition. 

JP-2:  Japan is worried about the integrity of the table on the ITTF web site.  Once the amendment is final, the URL will be fixed, and the table will be secured by ITTF.  Backup copies by ITTF and the editor ensure constant contents, once approved.  Neither contents nor name of the table will change.

JP-3:  How to normatively reference electronically published standards. 


US-1:  repertoire of Unicode 3.1 will be provided by Ken Whistler to the editor.
AI – Ken:  Provide updated table to the editor.  The repertoire needs to be Unicode 3.1.

US-2:  accepted. 

US-3:  accepted

US-4:  accepted, overlap problems in edge cases


SE-1:  accepted.  Informative note.

SE-2:  accepted.

SC-3:  accepted, text will be changed slightly.

SE-4:  accepted. 

SE-5:  Ken explains the current order

Today   EXT A (3400)
URO (21000+)
12 CJK compatibility characters

Now     addition of EXT-B – Kent suggests a re-ordering, including additional 500 CJK compatibility characters.  Accepted.

SE-6:  rejected, making synchronization with Unicode Collation Algorithm difficult.

SE-7:  not accepted, MIN & MAX are sufficient.

SE-8:  deferred to the next edition

SE-9:  not accepted at this moment, do with the next full edition of the standard

SE-10:  accepted

SE-11:  not accepted, not relevant for the amendment.

SE-12:  Annex E – not provided by Sweden.


Full agreement on the discussed disposition of comments.  Resolution about the progression of 14651, amd.#1. 

AI - Ken promises the next table by November 23 latest.

FPDAM #1 sent to SC22 by end of November 2001.



John Clews dial in (+44-1423-888-432):

ICU collation update will cover Unicode 3.1

Runes:  any order is OK.  Possibly preferred the transliteration order. 

Burmese, Khmer, Mongolia:  asking if there is any additional input – NO ordering except the basic character ordering has been suggested. 


Discussion of Korean ordering (Kim):

Prof. Kim presents his paper N876, comments to the DPRK proposed delta and Kent Karlsson’s proposal.  There are different ordering rules in the two Koreas.  Explanation of transliteration of Korean with varying methods for consonants. 

DPRK might propose 8 Old Hangul letters.

It would be nice to have common ordering rules between both Koreas.  This needs to be agreed upon by the two Koreas, no need to get into that discussion.  SK does not have an order for the Old Hangul.  SK will publish 14651 with a Modern Hangul order specification. 



Ordering works fine for complete syllables.  14651 recommends normalization before ordering, if independent letters are to be sorted.  (UCA does require normalization).  If only compatibility characters are ordered, the order is OK, problems will only come up when old and new code pages are mixed. 



13.     Cultural convention specifications  ISO/IEC PDTR 14652

See SC22 resolutions 01-25 in N868


CEN CWA – European Culturally Specific ICT Requirements

CEN CWA 14094, ESR:2000



Rules for the use of IJ in Netherlands pubic records

Johan van Wingen



CEN prEN 14142-1:  Components of postal addresses  (paper copy only – request)




Using TR 14652 in COBOL 200x

Ann Bennett


Discussion about the meaning of the word “contentions”.  Some sections are controversial and have been so for many ballots – the dispositions of comments from earlier ballots are non satisfying. 

N883 was produced by the editor as the preliminary disposition of comments (50 pages).  The document was distributed as input to the discussion. 

Sandra O’Donnell used teleconferencing to contribute to the discussion. 

The SC22 plenary has passed a resolution how to re-package the DTR with markings, which of the sections are controversial.  Any resulting document will be balloted again as a DTR according to SC22 resolution 01-25. 

Sandra:  4 major objectionable areas:  monetary with dual currency, time zone, repertoire map, and transliteration. 


Objection #16:  the question is, if e.g. French Francs and Euros are one currency ?  The enhancement is controversial, the whole section. 

Keld:  the US proposal to use alt_currency_symbol is not acceptable to the editor. 

Section 4.5 is marked as controversial. 


Objection #32:  transliteration, section 4.9.

The method proposed here is not generally usable, some languages (Hebrew, Japanese, etc…) can not be transliterated.  Sandra believes that transliteration does not belong into the TR.  Locale concept extensions are not workable – example were ICONs. 

Keld says, that transliteration only works into the locale from various languages.  All rules would need to be defined in one locale – it does not scale well. 

Section 4.9 is controversial.


Objection #30:  Time zones, section 4.7, the extensions beyond POSIX 2 are controversial.  Only works for 1 time zone.  Is not culturally specific.  There are more controversial parts than the time zones. 

Section 4.7 is controversial. 


Objection #53: – repertoiremap, section 6

Section 6 REPERTOIREMAP is controversial.


Section 7 – conformance is controversial (e.g. Technical #69). 

Keld:  TR type 1 are failed standards and thus do have conformance sections. 


Sandra promises to send to Keld wording about the combining classes. 


Long discussion about the usefulness of TR 11017 and other work of WG20. 


Keld leads through the document N883. 


Keld will ask the Finnish NB, if their comment about structural issues can be used .


1. Audience:  French comments are accepted, their text will be used. 

2. France asks for assertion of POSIX compatibility.  Keld will add a line to reference the new POSIX standard  “this TR is aligned with POSIX 200x“.

3. multiple currencies are controversial.  Some NBs want it, some don’t.

4. No change to the draft.


LC_CTYPE classes:  confusing specification, can not be changed due to existing implementation. 

Monetary section is deemed controversial.  The German comments are rejected.  Statement is needed that applications conforming to the new standard can also process old locales.  Old applications will not run new formats. 

LC_XLITERATE is controversial, text will not be changed.  Used in some LINUX implementations.



Answer should be along the lines of the answer to Finland.  Controversial sections are marked, invite Sweden to contribute to Annex D.  Point to POSIX practice for need of repertoiremap in string representation. 

Ken indicates the US position to ensure, that all controversial sections are clearly identified, and that the DoC shows how the TR will be changed.

SE-1:  not accepted.

SE-2:  no change to  text, rejected.

SE-3:  rejected, no change to the text, existing POSIX practice

SE-4:  string format – rejected, no change

SE-5:  not accepted, no change to the structure of the FDCC set

SE-6:  not accepted

SE-7:  not accepted – transliterate section is marked as controversial


United Kingdom:

The comments are rejected.  Sections are marked controversial, the UK is invited to submit dissenting opinions to Annex D. 

Keld indicates that he will re-write parts – so the comments are  partially accepted.


United States:

The numbers refer to the USA objections with the same numbers.

Keld agreed to remove argumentative sentences in the disposition of comments and to concentrate on specifying, which comments are accepted and which are not.  The disposition will also identify, which objections are not accepted because of POSIX. 

US-1:  not accepted

US-2:  not accepted

US-3:  accepted

US-4:  use of ranges – Japan had asked for that in an earlier comment.  This function requires more complex parsers, the tables are less readable.  Accepted, text will be removed, tables modified accordingly.

US-5:  rejected

US-6:  accepted

US-7:  accepted

US-8:  rejected, add “decimal” before digits

US-9:  accepted

US-10:  not accepted

US-11:  same as German comment, asking for removal of combining classes from the text (and a definition of class).  LC_CTYPE extension to “class” and “map” keywords are controversial. 

US-12:  rejected, keyword “width” is marked as controversial

US-13:  “map” keyword is controversial partially accepted.

US-14:  not accepted

US-15:  add fullwidth digits to repertoiremap.  Spaces handling will not be changed because it is POSIX practice (class definition is not sufficient).  Partially accepted, some changes to the text will be made. 

US-16:  The complete section LC_MONETARY is marked as controversial.  Comments are not accepted.

US-17:  rejected, words come from POSIX

US-18:  not accepted, section marked as controversial

US-19:  partially accepted, some rewording for clarification will be done.

US-20:  marked as controversial

US-21:  rejected

US-22:  not accepted, complete section marked as controversial

US-23:  Not accepted, complete section marked as controversial

US-24:  see above

US-25:  see above

US-26:  not accepted

US-27:  accepted:  note that various formats of ISO 8601 exist will be added at the beginning of the LC_TIME zone. 

US-28:  not accepted

US-29:  not accepted

US-30:  editorial correction accepted, text change not accepted.

US-31:  not accepted

US-32:  LC_XLITERATE:  not accepted.  The complete section is marked as controversial.  Clarification for target language will be added.

US-33:  accepted (consistency)

US-34:  accepted.  String.  Clarify format.

US-35:  accepted, clarification will be added. 

US-36:  accepted, clarify intent. 

US-37:  not accepted

US-38:  profession is not part of the name.  Clarify.

US-39:  editorial comment accepted, comment not accepted.

US-40:  accepted

US-41:  accepted

US-42:  define CEPT mailcode and the fact that this is simply a string. 

US-43:  accepted, clarifying text will be added

US-44:  This does not work well for the USA. E.g.   Addressee is not part of the LC_ADDRESS .  It is necessary that a note be added to explain that fact.  Additionally, an alternative format (U+xxxx) need to be added to make it understandable.  Examples for USA and Korea will be added. 

US-45:  accepted, clarifying text will be added

US-46:  accepted,. string field for extension needs to be added

US-47:  accepted

US-48:  accepted

US-49:  accepted

US-50:  accepted

US-51:  accepted

US-52:  not accepted. 

US-53:  REPERTOIREMAP – the complete section is marked as controversial.  Mainly rejected.

US-54:  noted.

US-55:  accepted

US-56:  accepted

US-57:  accepted

US-58:  accepted

US-59:  accepted

US-60:  accepted

US-61:  accepted

US-62:  accepted in principle, make consistent with 14651

US-63:  accepted

US-64:  accepted

US-65:  accepted

US-66:  accepted

US-67:  accepted

US-68:  partially accepted, will be made consistent.  Charmap can contain other entities, such as anchors for re-ordering in formats that are not Unicode identifiers. 

US-69:  not accepted.  Section 7 is marked controversial. 

US-70:  accepted

US-71:  rejected, this is how it is used in POSIX

US-72:  accepted.  Solution will be found (and reviewed).

US-73:  accepted. 

US-74:  accepted, will be fixed. 

US-75:  accepted. 



Editing group:  Keld, Alain, Kim, Ken, Sandra, Arnold


New disposition of comments N883R

October 5, 2001

Ed. Group

Review by the editing group (approval by default)

October 10, 2001


Annex D input to the editor

November 21, 2001


New DTR document

End of November

Ed. Group

Review of the new DTR draft

December 11, 2001


Final DTR document for ballot

December 14, 2001


Submission for DTR ballot

December 17, 2001


14.     Registration of cultural elements  ISO/IEC 15897

See SC22 resolutions 01-27 in N868


PDTR 14766 Guidelines for POSIX National profiles and national locales

SC22 N3234



Text for registration and CD ballot of ISO/IEC 15897 Registration of cultural elements (replaces N845)

Keld Simonsen



Proposed ISO/IEC 15897 registration:
Finnish in Finland

SC22 N3263



Proposed ISO/IEC 15897 registration:
Norwegian Bokmål language locale for Norway

Norwegian Tech. Ctr. SC22 N3264



Proposed ISO/IEC 15897 registration:
Swedish in Sweden

SC22 N3262


15897 is in CD ballot now. 

15.     Internationalization API standard  ISO/IEC 15435

See SC22 resolutions 01-26 in N868.  No new document.  Waiting for the SC22 letter ballot result.  Project could be withdrawn and a TR for the functionality proposed. 

16.     ISO/IEC 10646 Issues

See SC22 resolutions 01-33 in N868.  Preparation for a character set ad-hoc at the next SC22 is needed. 

17.     CLAUI meeting in Malvern


Resolutions from CLAUI meeting in France

CLAUI meeting



Notice and call for documents for a CLAUI meeting in Malvern, PA  October 4-5, 2001

Arnold Winkler



Cancellation notice for the CLAUI meeting in Malvern, October 2001

Arnold Winkler


Arnold explains his reason for canceling the meeting (no contributions, no agenda item proposals, economic situation). 

Resolution:  for the next CLAUI meeting WG20 nominates Keld and Alain as representatives. 

18.     Other business

18.1     Netherlands information


Rules for the use of IJ in Netherlands pubic records

Johan van Wingen



Report on character set policy in the Netherlands
(Corrected version 1.1)

Johan van Wingen


18.2     Review of international standards

See SC22 resolutions 01-30 in N868


2001 Systematic review of International Standards

SC22 N3222


No action from WG20 is required.

19.     Review of Priorities and Target Dates

Progression of IS 14651 Amd.#1 and TR 14652 are in their respective agenda items. 

20.     Review of Actions Items from this meeting


Action item list



For new action items see the updated SD-5.

21.     Approval of Resolutions

The resolutions were reviewed and approved.

22.     Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned on October 3, 2:45 pm.