Subject: Re: (i18n.179) plan 9 and 10646

From: [email-masked] (Keld J|rn Simonsen)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:31:12 +0100

Glenn Adams writes:

> 
>    >From: [email-masked]
>    >
>    >i believe these system (design and migration) issues have been
>    >essentially ignored in all the work and fuss on unicode/10646.
> 
> I must add to my previous message regarding this.  I strongly
> disagree with Andrew that system design and/or migration issues
> have been ignored.  They were not ignored.  Rather, they were
> determined to be outside the scope of the character set standard
> as such.

> In developing 10646-based systems, much work beyond defining the
> character set needs to occur.  But that is above and beyond the
> immediate goals of designing Unicode or 10646.  The Unicode
> Consortium does have an implementation subcommittee and desires
> as much participation from interested parties as possible.
> Perhaps if interested parties would be more active in this process,
> their needs would be better considered.

I agree with Glenn Adams that system design would be outside the
scope of the design of 10646. The migration should have been
part of it, tho. And I also believe that the producers of
10646 should have had in mind their "customers" needs, for instance
what is the needs of the standard communities for documentation,
communication and programming languages (SC18, SC21, SC22))
to name a few of the important "customers" within JTC1.
You should not just design a character set for its own purpose,
but also look to how it is going to be used.

Then the definition on how to use 10646 should be made some other
places, for example in SC21 for communiactions and SC22 for
Operating Syatems and programming langusages. SC22/WG20 may have
a special ro>le here - and it is indeed looking into 10646 in many
aspects of its work.

Keld