[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

charter

> >The problem is just saying UTF2 does not have enough precision.
> 
> >10646 is too vague.
> 
> O.K, but it was one of the purposes for invating the people to the BOF.
> Because 10 646 is too vague and because just saying  UTF2 does not give
> enough precision we had the BOF. BOF minutes do not imply anything final.
> They just indicates that some work has  to be done. Don't you understand that?
> The charter of a WG indicates more precisely what is the goal/aims of the work.
> I thought that is enough clear to you. 

So, did I object your plan of the charter? I proposed extension for input
support, which you have had in mind already. I clarify to what extent
multilinguality purpued. And? What is your problem?

> >> No one is expecting from you to do it yourself but you have a proposal
> >> don't you??
> 
> >So, if we, like ISO, successfully created a chimeric monster, I will
> >actively agree that protocol-wise specification is necessary.
> 
> O.K, but how do you know in advance that we will create a chimeric monster??

I don't know but I hope not.

But, I have never objected to include the proposal in the charter. I only
said "good luck". Does that matter?

							Masataka Ohta