Sigfrid,
There are clearly differences of both terminology and opinion within the DC
community. I suggest we stop shouting and try to converge on a shared
terminology. This will allow us to discuss things, in the hope of finding
an approach that satisfies all of those involved.
When you assert that this or that was or wasn't agreed at Canberra or at
Helsinki, bear in mind that others may remember things somewhat differently.
Please note that it was I who proposed at DC-4 in Canberra:
1. the three "Canberra qualifiers", and
2. the dot notation.
I still have the PowerPoint slides I used there!
I hope to, before long, write a proposal which will:
- attempt to provide a unified vocabulary,
- discuss the various requirements put forward by various groups within
the DC community and the tensions between these sets of requirements,
- describe an approach which may satisfy these requirements.
I apologise for not having the time right now to engage in a detailed
dialogue, but I am travelling in a week's time to Tokyo (where I will be
chairing the two-day meeting of the W3C Internationalization WG and then
co-chairing the Twelfth International Unicode Conference) and Brisbane
(where I will be involved with WWW7 and related meetings). I have a lot of
preparation to do before I travel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misha Wolf Email: [log in to unmask] 85 Fleet Street
Standards Manager Voice: +44 171 542 6722 London EC4P 4AJ
Reuters Limited Fax : +44 171 542 8314 UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th International Unicode Conference, 8-10 Apr 1998, Tokyo, www.unicode.org
7th World Wide Web Conference, 14-18 Apr 1998, Brisbane, www7.conf.au
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Reuters Ltd.
|