[MPEG-OTSPEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: New AHG mandates and other news!

[Peter Constable]

I should have been more careful and precise: after discussion on the email lists had made clear that your proposal would not gain the consensus needed to be adopted as part of Unicode, and after repeated attempts to float the idea were met with the same responses of opposition to the idea, and after repeated requests by the list administrator not to continue discussion of a proposal that had been consistently failed to garner support, further discussion of the topic was banned. As far as I know, no proposal document has been submitted to and taken up by the Unicode Technical Committee, but I am quite sure that, if a proposal were put on the agenda for a UTC meeting, it would not be accepted.


> There is as far as I am aware no premise or presumption when sending any email message that a font will get transported with the message…

So, what I hear you now saying is that your proposal for localizable sentences does not need your proposed ‘text’ table. Then what is the point of the proposed ‘text’ table?


> The 'text' table would have far wider application that just localizable sentences.

No usage scenario has been presented suggesting a ‘text’ table would be useful in text-display implementations.



Peter

From: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at> on behalf of William_J_G Overington <wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 11:42 AM
To: 'MPEG OT Spec list' <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] New AHG mandates and other news!
> Your original idea of localizable sentences, as I recall, involved assigning Unicode code points to particular semantic propositions, or “sentences”.



Yes, that was the original idea, back in 2009.



Research has continued and developed. There are several possible encodings in the research, all involve sequences: two are markup, one involves the exclamation mark and ordinary digits, the other involves an integral sign and circled digits - harder to write a message, but more robust.



The third possible encoding needs a regular Unicode/ ISO-IEC 10646 encoding but would be unambiguous, highly robust and clearly free of concerns about proprietary rights. Yet it needs agreement from Unicode Inc. and ISO/IEC 10646 committees.



> Unicode has stated clearly it is not interested in pursuing that idea and banned further discussion of that idea from its email lists.



Actually no. A fictional character with email address root at unicode.org banned discussion. It was not a statement by an official named officer of Unicode Inc. acting officially. So its validity is highly questionable. If Unicode Inc. wishes to ban discussion of localizable sentence technology then it could officially state that, but Unicode Inc. has not done that. No notice of disapproval for encoding localizable sentences has been made.



Rather, the banning by a fictional character is like a Unicode version of The Luxembourg Compromise.



The fictional character did not state any reason why localizable sentences are unsuitable for encoding.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_compromise



I have not been given a fair opportunity to state my case and have it debated.



QID emoji has been treated as a serious proposal and a Public Review has taken place.



My proposal for localizable sentences being encoded is far more robust, and, I opine, should be treated seriously and assessed properly on a "sauce for pasta is sauce for rice" basis.



So there is nothing OFFICIAL about localizable sentences from Unicode Inc. of which I am aware.



So I keep trying to get my proposal for localizable sentences considered by Unicode Inc..



> I don’t think you should be trying to use this list as a back door to revisit the same idea.



I am not using this list as a back door. There has been a call for ideas and I have put one forward. From what you now write it appears that the 'name' table will not do what I am proposing in what, for purposes of discussion, can be called the 'text' table, because, as far as I am aware, that name is not already in use for an OpenType table.



Also, I am entitled to try to get my invention implemented.



So I am in favour of having the 'text' table and Peter is not, so that is 1 vote for and 1 vote against at this time.



So the proposal goes forward and hopefully other people will express a view and a consensus will emerge.



> Again, there’s an unstated premise of this idea that the font will get transported with the message.



No, there is no such premise.



There is as far as I am aware no premise or presumption when sending any email message that a font will get transported with the message.



My idea is that the message list will be an international standard and that localization will take place automatically in the receiving device when a language-independent encoded message is received, using a decoding list local to the recipient.



I have recently decided that all localizable sentences that are encoded shall have a language-independent glyph - at one time I considered that glyphs were not always needed, but I have since changed my mind on this as my research has proceeded.



I have replied to the comments made. The 'text' table would have far wider application that just localizable sentences.



William Overington



Tuesday 11 May 2021




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20210511/422973b5/attachment-0001.html>