iso - dkuugstd.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1353.doc · web viewunicode consortium would also like...

ISOInternational Organization for StandardizationOrganisation Internationale de Normalisation

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 2/WG 2Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS)

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 2/WG 2 N1353Date: 1996-06-25

Title: Unconfirmed Minutes of WG 2 Meeting # 30,Copenhagen, Denmark; 1996-04-22--26

Source: V.S. UMAmaheswaran, Meeting Secretary, Mike Ksar, ConvenerAction: WG 2 members and Liaison organizations

Distribution: ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 2/WG 2 members and Liaisons

1Opening and roll call

1.1OpeningInput Document:N1327 Second Call and Tentative Agenda for Meeting 30 in Copenhagen; Mike Ksar; 1996-03-01

Mr. Mike Ksar convened the meeting at 09:45h. In addition to the host, Danish Standards Association, the meeting was sponsored by Kommunedata (roughly translates in English as Danish Local Government Computing Centre), Danish UNIX systems User Group (DKUUG), and the Forskningsministeriet (The Ministry of Research and Information Technology). After welcoming the delegates to the meeting, he introduced Mr. Peter Lorenz Nielsen from Forskningsministeriet.

Mr. Nielsen welcomed the delegates to Copenhagen. Some highlights from his talk are given here. Denmark has been following the work of SC 2 and WG 2 for a number of years, and has contributed much to the development of SC 2 standards. He briefly introduced the background behind the document "Info-Society 2000", authored by the ministry, which describes the vision and target of the Danish IT-superhighway. Work of WG 2 is very important in facilitating electronic communications world wide. The goal of the project is very ambitious - it aims at being global first and be a benchmark for the world. Denmark has been in the forefront of IT and Telecommunications. For example, a Personal Identification Number for each person in Denmark was the first step. Similar identification numbers will be assigned for individual companies in the private sector and then to the public service. Public Archives have migrated to All-Electronic filing abandoning paper filing. A memo of understanding related to electronic mail has been issued -- the use of character sets is important in this aspect. About 80000 internet addresses have been issued. These are some examples related to the Electronic Infrastructure needed for executing the vision in Info-Society 2000. Migration to ISO/IEC 10646 on the wire is a goal. Mr. Nielsen concluded by wishing the working group to have a good meeting and enjoy Copenhagen.

Mr. Sven Thygesen explained the logistics -- meeting rooms, PCs, printers, copying, refreshments etc. -- of the meeting. A package containing information about Copenhagen, local restaurants, and other information was distributed to the delegates. A social evening was planned for Wednesday - a tour of the National Museum starting at 16:00h followed by a dinner (participating delegates were requested to bear a small charge to cover part of the cost.

The objective of this meeting was to continue to progress the WG2 program of work and adopt resolutions on repertoire content and allocation of code space. The WG2 mailing of documents N1260 - N1326 was done the 1st week of February 1996. Copies of some newer documents have been made available at the start of the meeting. More documents were being copied. Attending delegates were informed that they will not be sent another copy to reduce copying and distribution

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N1353 Unconfirmed Minutes 1996-06-25Meeting 30, Copenhagen, Denmark; 1996-04-22--26 of 56

costs to the convener's company. All documents were to be given to the convener for assigning a number, before sending for copying.

1.2Roll CallInput Document:N1301R Updated WG2 Distribution List; Mike Ksar; 1995--11-09

Mr. Mike Ksar requested the attending delegates to introduce themselves, and update the distribution list in document N1301 with corrections, deletions or additions of not only their own information, but also the information for others from their countries. Seventeen (17) member bodies, three (3) liaison organization were represented at this meeting. Romania and FYR of Macedonia were attending SC 2/WG 2 for the first time. A special warm welcome was extended by the convener to the experts from the new member bodies and other new experts attending WG 2 meeting for the first time.

NAME COUNTRY / LIAISON ORGANIZATION

AFFILIATION

V.S. UMAmaheswaran Canada; Meeting Secretary IBM CanadaMao Yong Gang China Chinese Electronics Standardization InstituteNyima Trashi China Tibet UniversityFu Yonghe China State Language CommissionDaWar Tsering China Tibetan Language Committee of TibetZhang Zhoucai China, IRG Rapporteur CCIDBent Barnholdt Denmark Library and Information ConsultantKeld Jøn Simonsen Denmark Danish UNIX-system User GroupKlaus Sondergaard Denmark Danish Standards AssociationSven Thygesen Denmark KommunedataRatislav Kardalev FYR of Macedonia Ministry of ScienceEvangelos Melagrakis Greece; Liaison to CEN/TC304 ELOT, Hellenic Organization for Standardsþorvaðør Kári Ólafsson Iceland Icelandic Council for StandardizationMichael Everson Ireland Everson Gunn TeorantaShigenobu Katoh Japan Toppan Printing Co. Ltd.Takayuki K. Sato Japan Hewlett-Packard Japan Ltd.Kyongsok Kim Korea Pusan National UniversityMyatavyn Erdenechimeg Mongolia International Institute for IT, UN University, MacauOliver Corff Mongolia International Institute for IT, UN University, MacauOchirbatvn Chilkhaasuren Mongolia Mongolian National Institute for Standardization and

MetrologyJohan van Wingen Netherlands; Liaison to SC 22 ConsultantElzbieta Broma-Wrzesien Poland Polish TelecomAlexandrina Statescu Romania Romanian Standards InstituteBorka Jerman-Blazic Slovenia Institute Josef StefanOlle Järnefors Sweden Royal Institute of TechnologyHugh McGregor Ross UK ConsultantBruce Paterson UK; Editor ConsultantAsmus Freytag Unicode Consortium Asmus Inc.Michel Suignard USA MicrosoftMike Ksar USA, Convener Hewlett-Packard Company

Messrs. Sven Thygesen, Bruce Paterson, Mike Ksar and Umamaheswaran were appointed to the drafting committee for resolutions.

Note: Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis had raised objection to the fact that in the above table of attendees the country name is shown with the title as NATIONAL BODY. I have changed the title of the column to 'COUNTRY (of National Body) or LIAISON ORGANIZATION' , modeled after the content of Table of Replies documents from SC 2 secretariat.-- Uma.

1996-06-25 Unconfirmed Minutes ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N1353 of 56 Meeting 30, Copenhagen, Denmark; 1996-04-22--26

2Approval of the agendaInput Document:N1327 Second Call and Tentative Agenda for Meeting 30 in Copenhagen; Mike Ksar; 1996-03-01

The draft agenda was reviewed and several new items were added to the agenda. Some additional documents that were identified for discussion later during the meeting were also accepted. The following is the modified agenda that was adopted for the meeting:

1 Opening and roll call1.1 Opening N13271.2 Roll call N1301R

2 Approval of the agenda N13273 Approval of minutes of meeting 29 in Tokyo, Japan N13034 Review action items from meeting 29 N13035 Status of documents sent to JTC1 and ITTF

5.1 DAM 1 - DAM 4 N1305 to N1308, N1309, N1310 to N1313, N1334 to N13375.2 SC2 Secretariat Report to JTC1 N13175.3 Publication Schedule N13285.4 Identification of versions of the standard

6 Status of documents sent to SC26.1 DAM-5 (Hangul) to JTC 1 N13316.2 pDAM6 (Tibetan) N1295, N1314, N1374, N13786.3 pDAM 7 (33 Additional Characters) N1315, N13416.4 pDAM 8 (CJK Unification Rules) N1316, N1343

7 Non-repertoire issues7.1 10646 Corrigenda

7.1.1 Marked up revised text portion of 10646 N1223R7.1.2 Editorial corrigenda - 2nd cumulative list N12887.1.3 Revised Annex E N1360

7.2 Naming of characters7.2.1 Editorial corrigenda regarding naming of characters N12877.2.2 Character naming principles N1329

7.3 Draft pDAM on Unique Identifiers N1289R7.4 Proposed Hebrew entries for Annex P N13467.5 Principles and Procedures N1302, N1352

8 Repertoire issues:8.1 Indic and SouthEast Asian Scripts

8.1.1 Extended Level 2 for Indic and South East Asian scripts N1320, N13738.1.2 Harmonization of Indic and South East Asian scripts N1321, N1376

8.2 Additional Latin characters8.2.1 Livonian N13228.2.2 Croatian poetry N13258.2.3 Romanian N1361

8.3 Additional Cyrillic characters8.3.1 Macedonian characters N13248.3.2 Additional Cyrillic combined characters N1323

8.4 Ethiopic N1270, N1326, N13728.5 Farsi N1247, N1275, N13198.6 Runic N1222, N1229, N1230N 1239, N1262, N1330, N13828.7 Symbols:

8.7.1 Byzantine Music Symbols N1208, N13758.7.2 Naming and coding of symbols N13408.7.3 Keyboard symbols N13388.7.4 Electrotechnical symbols N985, N1146, N1303 (Action Item)

8.8 Kang Xi Radicals N11828.9 Braille N1339, N1342, N13638.10 Pinyin N1282, N13558.11 Cherokee N1172, N1356, N13628.12 Mongolian N1226, N1248, N1268, N1273, N1286, N1368, N13838.13 Yiddish N13648.14 Object replacement character N1365

9 IRG status and reports N1348, N1349, N1357, N1368, N1359, N1369, N137910 Defect reports status11 Liaison reports


11.1 ISO/TC173 - Braille N133911.2 Unicode Consortium N137711.3 AFII N134711.4 ITU N134411.5 CEN/TC 304 N138011.6 SC 2211.7 SC 22 WG 3 - APL

12 Other business12.1 Use of electronic tools in SC2/WG2's work N138112.2 A soft-copy viewer for Unicode V2.0 document

13 Closing13.1 Approval of resolutions13.2 Future meetings13.3 Adjournment

3Approval of the minutes of meeting 29 in Tokyo, JapanInput Document:N1303 Minutes of Meeting 29, Tokyo; Ksar & Uma; 1996-01-26

Dr. V.S. UMAmaheswaran presented the highlights of meeting 29 in Tokyo, Japan, referring to the different sections of document N1303. The minutes were accepted with the following correction:

a) Change 'Peterson' to 'Paterson' wherever it has been misspelled in document N1303.

4Review of action items from meeting 29Input Document:N1303 Minutes of Meeting 29, Tokyo; Ksar & Uma; 1996-01-26

Dr. V.S. UMAmaheswaran reviewed the status of outstanding action items, referring to the list under section 15, in document N1303. Several items had been completed, and the others were either in progress or still outstanding. Some items that had not progressed were removed from the list. The following tables show the status of the various action items. (The notation AI-mm-n-k is used for the action items, where, AI stands for Action Item, mm is the WG 2 meeting number when it was first assigned, and n is the sequence number of a group of action items from that meeting, and optionally, 'k' represents the specific action item -a, b, c, d etc. where there is more than one.)

N1303 - 15.1 Outstanding items from WG 2 meeting 25 Antalya, TurkeyItem Assigned to / action (Reference document N1034 - resolutions, and

document N1033 - minutes of Antalya meeting WG 2-25, and corrections to these minutes in Section 3 of document N1117)

Status

AI-25-5 Japanese member bodya is requested to forward a set of bit maps and /or the outline of the

corrected shapes reported in document N1006 and document N1014 along with a blown-up (96x96) hard copy to the editor.Note: Japan needed more information from the project editor regarding fonts See discussion under section 8.1.2 in WG 2-M26 minutes document N1117.First choice is True Type, or any Outline Font that can be converted to True Type; Last choice is 96x96 bit maps. The set is to be sent to Mr. Mike Ksar.M26, 27, 28, N29: In progressM30: Japan had sent the appropriate fonts to the convener. However, they could not be utilized -- reason unknown. JIS has already published material and it can be used by WG2.

M30: Japan will further supply a camera ready copy of appropriate pages.

AI-25-6 Korean member body is requested to forward the set of bit maps, and or the outline of the corrected shapes of the characters in defects in document N975, along with a blown-up (96x96 bits) hard copy is needed by the editor.M26, M27: M28, M29: In progress; Korea will attempt to speed up the

M30: Professor Kim will investigate the fonts for two remaining shapes in defect.


Item Assigned to / action (Reference document N1034 - resolutions, and document N1033 - minutes of Antalya meeting WG 2-25, and corrections to these minutes in Section 3 of document N1117)

Status

availability of fonts.M30: Of the 6 characters that had the defective shapes, four have been over-ridden by pDAM-5 on Korean.

AI-25-10 Chinese member bodya is requested to study this possibility of composition to reduce the number

of characters of the Yi script in document N965 that needs coding in the BMP.M26, 27, 28, 29: Under study.

M30: Still under study; Target M31.

N1303 - 15.2 Outstanding items from WG 2 meeting 26, San Francisco, CA, USAItem Assigned to / action (Reference document N1118 - resolutions, and

document N1117 - minutes of San Francisco meeting WG 2-26, and corrections to these minutes noted in Section 3 of document N1203)

Status

AI-26-8 Ms. Joan Aliprand - Liaison to TC 46to take parts related to TC 46 in document N1071 for formal submission as liaison document by TC 46 along with the completed Proposal Summary Form.M27, M28: In progress.M29: Mr. Arnold Winkler tried to reach Ms. Aliprand - no success.

Outstanding;M30: Mr. Mike Ksar will pursue the item with Ms. Aliprand - target M31.

AI-26-11 Mr. Johan W. van Wingenb is invited to prepare contributions on Railway users that he volunteered to

prepare during the meeting.M27--M30: No progress; No expertise left in Netherlands on the topic.

Dropped.

AI-26-13 Mr. Michael Everson and CanadaWith reference to document N1104 on Canadian Aboriginal syllabics, to work with Canadian member body (and CASEC) and get agreement on a common position.M27--M30: CASEC (Mr. Dirk Vermeulen), the Canadian national committee, Mr. Everson and Mr. Hugh Ross are in correspondence with each other exploring the different alternatives and addressing some outstanding differences in views. Mr. Vermeulen has also presented on the topic to Unicode technical committee and to Unicode conference.

In progress;M30: Further discussions ongoing; Target M31.

AI-26-14 Mr. Hugh McGregor Ross and CanadaWith reference to document N1073 on Canadian Aboriginal syllabics, to work with Canadian member body (and CASEC) and get agreement on a common position.See AI-26-13 above.


N1303 - 15.3 Outstanding items from WG 2 meeting 27, Geneva, SwitzerlandItem Assigned to / action (Reference Meeting 27 Resolutions document

N1204, Unconfirmed Meeting 27 Minutes in Document N1203, and corrections noted in document N1253)

Status

AI-27-2 Convener, Mr. Mike Ksari to prepare a revised proposal for the joint working of ECMA TC1 and WG2

for discussion at the next WG 2 meeting taking into consideration the input received so far and the comments at the meeting.M30: TC1 has been disbanded.

Dropped.

k to work with Danish Standards and establish the rules and guidelines related to the world wide web on WG 2 and the proposed FTP site for distribution of WG 2 documents.

Completed;See document N1381.

AI-27-6 Vietnamese Member Body, Mr. Michael Everson and Mr. Bruce Patersonto work with the co-editor Mr. Bruce Paterson to answer the various questions that were raised during the meeting on the proposal for Cham script The questions and comments are being assembled by Mr. Everson, Ireland, on behalf of WG 2 and will be forwarded to the Vietnamese member body.

Dropped;M30: No further progress.


Item Assigned to / action (Reference Meeting 27 Resolutions document N1204, Unconfirmed Meeting 27 Minutes in Document N1203, and corrections noted in document N1253)

Status

AI-27-12 Mr. Johan van Wingen, Netherlandsis invited to examine the standard for the need for any statements regarding conventions used for naming characters such as 'digits', 'letters', etc. and propose clarification texts -- see minutes item 6.1.2.2.

In progress;M29-M30: No new progress

AI-27-13 Mr. Hugh Ross, UKa to get supportive requirements statements on his proposal for Yoruba and

Hausa from the appropriate governments in Africa.Completed;Relevant documents have been mailed to the convener.

N1303 - 15.4 Outstanding items from WG 2 meeting 28, Helsinki, FinlandItem Assigned to / action (Reference Meeting 28 Resolutions document

N1254 and Unconfirmed Meeting 28 minutes in document N1253, and corrections noted in document N1303)

Status

AI-28-9 Sweden (Mr. Olle Järnefors)a to prepare a revised submission on Runic characters, based on the

feedback at this meeting and earlier.Completed;See documents N1330, N1382.

N1303 - 15.5 Outstanding Action items from WG 2 meeting 29, Tokyo, JapanItem Assigned to / action (Reference Meeting 29 Resolutions document

N1304 and Unconfirmed Meeting 29 minutes in document N1303 -and corrections to these minutes in section 3 of document N1353).

Status

AI-29-1 Meeting Secretary - Dr. V.S. UMAmaheswarana To finalize the document N1304 containing the adopted meeting resolutions

and send a plain text and word processor source to the convener as soon as possible, for electronic distribution by the convener to the WG 2 membership and to SC 2.


b To finalize the document N1303 containing the unconfirmed meeting minutes and send to the convener for distribution to WG 2.


AI-29-2 Convener, Mr. Mike Ksara With reference to resolution M29.3 (Iranian quest), to communicate to the

Iranian national body that:Iranian PSP (pseudo space) can be unified with

200C ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINERIranian PCN (pseudo connection) can be unified with

200D ZERO WIDTH JOINERalong with the explanatory text in document N1275.

Completed;Resolutions (N1303) and Minutes (N1304) have been sent to the national body; Also see document N1319.

b Per resolution M28.9, to forward document N1224 - 'An operational model for characters and glyphs' as the first draft text for a Technical Report to SC2 secretariat to be attached to an NP for balloting in JTC1.

Completed.

c With reference to resolution M29.5 (Translatability of names), and in light of resolution M29.4 (Unique identifiers), to inform the SC 2 secretariat about its opinion to SC 2 that "the names in 10646 may be translated in other language versions of the standard", and to request SC 2 to inform ITTF and SC 2 member bodies accordingly.

Completed;SC 2 secretariat has noted and has informed ITTF.

d To advise ITTF to fix the error in Technical corrigendum no. 1; and to distribute the final text to WG 2, for information.

Completed.

e To send a liaison statement to APL subcommittee (SC 22/WG 3) with reference to the defect reported in document N1087, informing of them of the possibility of unification of the requested character with one of the existing characters 25A1, 2610, 25AD or 25AF, and seek their preference. Once their selection is known, an entry in the annex on additional information on characters will be made in the standard, to reflect its use as APL Function Symbol Quad.

Completed;Dr. Uma had informed Mr. Leigh Clayton, SC22/WG3, about the resolution from Tokyo; Feedback from SC22/WG3 has been received by Mr. Mike Ksar, the convener.

f The convener and Dr. Asmus Freytag to discuss and propose ways to improve the WG 2 to Unicode consortium feedback and synchronization.



Item Assigned to / action (Reference Meeting 29 Resolutions document N1304 and Unconfirmed Meeting 29 minutes in document N1303 -and corrections to these minutes in section 3 of document N1353).

Status

g To forward document N1279 on Braille with a cover letter (to be prepared with assistance of Dr. Asmus Freytag) to TC 173 / SC 4 in ISO, as a liaison document, and request feedback and confirmation that it meets their requirements.


AI-29-3 Project Editor, Mr. Bruce Petersona With reference to resolution M29.1, prepare an editorial corrigendum

reflecting the following:Add the following entries in the annex "Additional Information on Characters:00AB LEFT-POINTING DOUBLE ANGLE QUOTATION MARKThis character could alternatively be used as: Arabic opening quotation mark with a variant glyph00BB RIGHT-POINTING DOUBLE ANGLE QUOTATION MARKThis character could alternatively be used as: Arabic closing quotation mark with a variant glyph


b With reference to resolution M29.2, to prepare an updated disposition of comments reflecting the discussion at meeting no.29. The editor is further instructed to prepare the text of Draft Amendment No. 5, and forward it to SC 2 secretariat for further processing. WG2 expects the decision on the final presentation of names of Hangul Syllables as a table of names or using an algorithm would be an editorial matter. The Korean NB is to assist the editor in this effort by providing the necessary camera ready copy of the code tables and glyph tables for inclusion In the DAM-5 for JTC 1 ballot.

Completed;See documents N1293, N1331 and N1332.

c With reference to resolution M9.3 (Iranian request), to prepare an editorial corrigendum capturing the explanatory text on the usage of ZWNJ and ZWJ provided in document N1275.


d With reference to resolution M29.4 (Unique identifiers) to prepare draft text for a pDAM on Identifiers capturing the principles in the following paragraph, and reflecting the subsequent discussion at its meeting no.29:"A language-independent identifier for a character is a sequence of eight hexadecimal digits representing the hexadecimal value of its UCS-4 code position. Optionally, if the leading four hexadecimal digits are all zeroes, the four leading zeroes may be omitted. To distinguish between the four- and eight-digit forms of the identifier, an optional prefix character, a '+' (PLUS SIGN) for the four-digit form, or a '-' (MINUS SIGN) for the eight digit form, may be used. In addition to a '+' or '-', a further prefix letter 'U' (CAPITAL LATIN LETTER U) may be used. For code position assignments prior to the Amendment No. 5 (Korean Hangul Syllables) version, the prefix letter 'T' (CAPITAL LATIN LETTER T) shall be used instead of 'U'. These language-independent identifiers are not case-sensitive."


e With reference to resolution M29.5 (Translatability of names), to prepare an editorial corrigendum reflecting the proposals for clarification text in the standard, for consideration at meeting no. 30.

Completed;See documents N1287, N1340.

f With reference to resolution M29.6 (Character names), to prepare an editorial corrigendum reflecting the following:"The names of characters in ISO/IEC 10646 are not intended to be used to identify properties of characters or to document linguistic characteristics",for consideration at meeting no. 30.


AI-29-8 IRGa With reference to resolution M29.9 (IRG), to prepare a new document

reflecting the complete repertoire, showing clearly the different prioritization levels and send it to the convener for WG 2 distribution and feedback.


AI-29-9 China, Canada and USa With reference to resolution M29.10 (Missing Pinyin characters), to prepare

a defect report for consideration by WG 2 at meeting no.30.M30: Document N1355 proposes that the characters are not defects (missing) and the Chinese request should be considered as new proposed characters. Canadian contribution to N1355 did not happen.


AI-29-4 Liaison Representative to SC 22 (Mr. Johan van Wingen)a With reference to resolution M29.4 (Unique Identifiers) to inform SC22 and

SC22/WG20 of the outcome of the discussion in M29 on the subject of 'unique identifiers' requested by SC22.

Completed;SC 22 has been informed of resolution



Status

M29.4 via e-mail by Mr. Arnold Winkler.

AI-29-5 Mongolia, China, Ireland, UK, the Unicode Consortium (and others interested)

a With reference to resolution M29.7 (Mongolian), to create a joint proposal on the Mongolian script based on further discussion, using the output document N1286 from the ad hoc group on Mongolian at meeting 29 as the starting set of principles of encoding Mongolian.

Completed;See document N1383 from M30.

AI-29-6 Greecea With reference to resolution M29.8 (Greek Byzantine musical notation), to

prepare a revised proposal based on feedback from interested parties for consideration at meeting no. 30.


AI-29-7 Denmarka To follow up with the SC 2 secretariat about the missing entry for

Denmark's ballot on pDAM-5 (Korean Hangul) in document N1249.Completed. The ballot responses are to be sent to the SC2 secretariat ECMA's address and NOT to SNV (the member body).

AI-29-8 Singaporea To follow up with the SC 2 secretariat about the status of Singapore as an'

active P-member' instead of an 'other P-member'.Completed.

AI-29-9 Koreaa To assist the editor in this effort by providing the necessary camera ready

copy of the code tables and glyph tables for inclusion In the DAM-5 for JTC 1 ballot.

Completed;See documents N1293, N1331 and N1332.

b To take note of the following comment from Mr. Zhang Zhoucai: "The latest Korean standard document (from Professor Kim) being published still has one glyph in the Korean column of unified ideograph as a serious defect. The Korean NB has not fixed it nor reported to WG 2".

Outstanding.M30: Professor Kim to check.

AI-29-10 Chinaa To take comments in document N1246 and comments from this meeting

(M29) as feedback to the appropriate experts on Uyghur, Kazakh and Kirgihiz.

In progress.

b To discuss their proposal on Ideographic Structure Symbols (N1284) with other interested parties, including the Unicode Technical Committee, and present additional information at the next WG 2 meeting.


AI-29-11 SC18 WG9 Liaison (Mr. Alain LaBonté)a To provide the keyboard symbols in document N1258R in true type fonts to

the editor.Completed;See document N1338.

AI-29-12 Japana To update document N1279 on Braille, based on the discussion at this

meeting, for discussion at the Copenhagen meeting.Completed;See documents N1342, N1345.

AI-29-13 Unicode Consortium (Dr. Asmus Freytag)a To review document N985 on Electrotechnical Symbols, and provide

feedback as to which characters can be unified, which can be accepted etc.Completed;See document N1340.

b The convener and Dr. Asmus Freytag to discuss and propose ways to improve the WG 2 to Unicode consortium feedback and synchronization.


c To assist the convener in preparing the text to be included in the liaison letter to TC 173/SC 4 on the subject of Braille (with reference to document N1279.


AI-29-14 Mr. Sven Thygesena To update the document N1241 - status of work items - for review at the

next meeting, reflecting the resolutions and dispositions to date.Completed;See document N1302.

AI-29-15 All member bodies and liaison organizationsa To take note of AI-29-5 above and participate in the discussion on the Noted.



Status

Mongolian script, if there is interest from experts in their country.b To review and feedback on documents N1210, N1222, N1229, N1230,

N1239, and N1262 on Runic.Noted;See document N1330.

c To ensure that they review pDAM-6, pDAM-7 and pDAM-8 and return their ballot responses in time, including any contributions towards improving the documents.

Completed;See tables of replies in documents N1314, N1315 and N1316,

d To review the algorithm for naming of Korean Hangul characters in pDAM-5, proposed in document N1285 by the Unicode Consortium, for suitability for naming Hangul syllables in AM-5.

Noted.

e To review and feedback on document N1182 - proposal on Kang Xi radicals from TCA.

Noted;Some feedback;See document N1348 from IRG.

f To note the font requirement for the glyphs that are submitted for consideration by WG 2 - is TRUE TYPE. Products such as Fontographer are available to do the conversion from Bit Maps or EPS files etc. to True Type.

Noted.

g To review and feedback on document N1223R containing proposed Corrigendum text.

Noted.

h To review the list of issues (document N1278) prepared by Japan, and comment on whether there are more items to be identified.

Noted;Issues in N1278 will be incorporated into revised N1241.

i To take note of the following future meeting dates:a) Meeting planned for January 29 to 2 February 1996 in the San Francisco

Bay Area is canceled.b) Meeting no. 30: 22 to 26 April 1996, in Denmark (see document N1283)c) Meeting no. 31: 12 to 16 August 1996, in Canada (the week prior to WG 3

and SC 2 meetings) (backup UK, Cyprus)d) Meeting no. 32: 20 to 24 January 1997, in Singapore (backup Cyprus)e) Meeting no. 33: 23 to 27 June 1997, in Cyprus (no backup)

Noted.


5Status of documents sent to JTC1 and ITTF

5.1DAM 1 - DAM 4Input Documents:N1305 Table of replies to JTC1 letter ballot 10646 DAM1, UTF-16 (SC2 N2664); SC2 Secretariat; 1996-01-15N1306 Table of replies to JTC1 letter ballot on 10646 DAM 2, UTF-8 (SC2 N2665); SC2 Secretariat; 1996-01-15N1307 Table of replies to JTC1 letter ballot on 10646 DAM 3, Coding of C1 Controls, (SC2 N2666); SC2 Secretariat; 1996-

01-15N1308 Table of replies to JTC1 letter ballot on 10646 DAM 4, Removal of Annex G: UTF-1 (SC2 N2667); SC2 Secretariat;

1996-01-15N1309 Report and Disposition of Comments on DAM 1, UTF 16 and DAM 2, UTF-8, DAM 3, Coding of C1 Controls, and

DAM 4, Removal of Annex G: UTF1; Bruce Paterson; 1996-01-17N1310 Draft Final Text of 10646 AMD 1, UTF-16; Bruce Paterson; 1996-01-17N1311 Draft Final Text of 10646 AMD-2, UTF-8; Bruce Paterson; 1996-01-17N1312 Draft Final Text of 10646 AMD-3, Coding of C1 Controls; Bruce Paterson; 1996-01-17N1313 Draft Final Text of 10646 AMD-4, Removal of Annex G:UTF-1 ; Bruce Paterson; 1996-01-17N1334 10646 Amendment 1 (UTF-16) - 2nd Final Draft; Bruce Paterson; 1996-03-20N1335 10646 Amendment 2 (UTF-8) - 2nd Final Draft; Bruce Paterson; 1996-03-20N1336 10646 Amendment 3 (C0C1) - 2nd Final Draft; Bruce Paterson; 1996-03-20N1337 10646 Amendment 4 (remove Utf-1) - 2nd Final Draft; Bruce Paterson; 1996-03-20

Presentation:Mr. Bruce Paterson: Documents N1305 to N1308 contain the table of replies to JTC 1 letter ballot on Draft Amendments 1 to 4. Of the 20 P-members and 5 O-members, all the 20 P-members and none of the O-members had replied. DAM-1 has one NEGATIVE vote (Canada). There were some editorial comments on DAM-1. DAMs 2 through 4 had all 20 positive ballots. DAM-2 had some editorial comments. All the ballots indicate acceptance of these by JTC 1.

Document N1309 contains a report and disposition of comments on these ballots. ITTF will have this document on record before they can publish the official amendments. Canadian negative ballot and comments cannot be accommodated at this time - it is a major technical change that has been proposed.

Documents N1310-N1314 contain the draft final text of these amendments. Documents N1334-N1337 contain the second final draft text correcting some editorial errors in N1310-N1314 due to incomplete instructions from ITTF on preparation of final texts for Amendments. N1334-N1337 reflect what will get published by ITTF.

Disposition:Mr. Mike Ksar: The final texts of these Amendments will be placed on the electronic repository of WG 2; they will not have ISO/IEC Copyright notice and will be for use of standards related work by WG 2 members and its liaison organizations.

5.2SC2 Secretariat Report to JTC1Input Document:N1317 SC2 Secretariat Report to JTC1 Plenary - March 1996; Jan van den Beld; 1996-01

This document was tabled for information of WG 2 members. It was NOT discussed at the meeting.

5.3Publication ScheduleInput Document:N1328 Publication Schedule for Amendments & Revision of ISO/IEC 10646 - Proposal; Bruce Paterson; 1996-03-03

Presentation:Bruce Paterson: Some practical problems regarding publication of the various accepted changes are enumerated in document N1328. Several corrections, published amendments, amendments to be published, and draft amendments that are or will be in the process of balloting are to be addressed. The current publication is fairly big -- almost 5mm thick. If we re-publish the document, the whole document has to be re-published at some point in time, the number of


amendments will be large enough that the users' convenience becomes a factor -- requiring a consolidation and republication of the standard. Of the 758 total pages, a break down of the different categories of content is included in the document -- also a breakdown of how many of these pages are impacted by the amendments and corrigenda is given.

The paper recommends option 4A: The suitable time for republication of the standard would be when the CJK tables are also to be updated. Till then, publish individual amendments and corrigenda separately. Most of the amendments and corrigenda are small in number of pages -- except AM-8 on Korean Hangul, which will be about 170+ pages. An expected schedule of publications of the Corrigenda and Amendments that are in process is also included. Amendments 6--8 will be decided on at this meeting.

Discussion:a) Mr. Shigenobou Kato: Would like to see a single document including the Hangul amendment -

better usability for users.b) Mr. Bruce Paterson: Current ITTF rules permit us only to publish the accepted amendments,

corrigenda etc. as separate documents. If we want to unify all these we have to republish the entire document. WG 2 is free -- after due ballot process -- to split the document into as many parts as needed based on any preferred re-organization of the information.

c) Mr. Keld Simonsen: An updated Annex E - alphabetical listing of all characters including COR-1 (see contribution N1360) is also an important part of the standard - and would like to see it published as a single unit. Documents which are working papers with consolidations of different parts of the accepted pieces can be made available to WG 2 members. This will be for the benefit of the user community. I am not sure if a single volume is still the best for the next edition. We can entertain splitting up the document into parts.

d) Mr. Sven Thygesen: We have to do the work of consolidation towards republishing anyway. We can choose to put them on the web.

e) Dr. Oliver Corff: From the cost of publications point of view, we may look at CD-ROMs. It will be better to have the information in the electronic form.

f) Dr. Asmus Freytag: The Unicode Consortium did a similar tally of pages etc. for Unicode V2.0 publication. They have more pages in terms of explanatory material. They managed to condense several of the pages to reduce the page count. A point to consider is - whether we are free to split the existing document into several parts instead of current single part 1. We have educated the world sufficiently that the perception that one script is better than the other is removed. What we could put out on the electronic distribution could be something in between textual and the full standard with all the code tables. There are several fonts available that people can make them visible using available technology. The revised text and list of names could be the material to make available electronically. There can be also a list of code positions and associated names. Annex E does not cover the Hangul, CJK characters etc.

g) Mr. Michael Everson: Is there a technical difference in balloting as a single document versus multiple parts of a document -- which will be collectively a single standard? I certainly appreciate the arguments against multiple parts -- based on recent experience with the 8859 parts.

h) Mr. Johan van Wingen: Being an editor of multiple parts of 8859, the synchronization between different parts can be done. Netherlands is in favor of producing multiple parts. We should entertain the question of multiple parts only when we are looking at republishing the second edition of the standard. As to the electronic versions of the standard, we should be careful in that we are NOT creating a GRAY category of documents. The OFFICIAL version from Geneva and others which are more convenient for users as WG 2 documents.

i) Mr. Mike Ksar: I would discourage the splitting the document into multiple parts -- it involves multiple balloting steps - on each part, and adds more complexity on the balloting process on the secretariat. For convenience of WG 2 members, one could consolidate several aspects of the accepted parts and place them on the web -- not focus on ISO publication right away. The current part numbering of the standard is with the intent of having part II for extended planes, and part I will contain the BMP. ITTF has to make a decision whether to publish in CD ROM or other electronic medium. We intend to place only the TEXTUAL portions of the standard on the web -- NOT the code tables. We do have the OK from ITTF for making the list of names of the characters available electronically. We do not have an equivalent of the


code tables in a form suitable to place on the web at the present time. We can include in the proposed updated Annex E, all the corrigenda, the DAM-s that have been approved from JTC 1, not just COR-1.

j) Mr. Bruce Paterson: The suggestion has been made in relation to document N1328 that when we plan a second edition, it may be convenient to have several parts. The convener had suggested that the balloting process will be more complex etc. However, the cost of publications and re-distribution could be reduced considerably, for example, keeping all the text of part I in tact, but move the code tables to multiple parts. Now that the public image reasons for having single part have been overcome, we can entertain the possibility of multiple parts.

k) Mr. Mike Ksar: Emphasized that multiple parts of the document should be dissuaded. People's view that the standard is a single global code set and not a regional or language based code set should be maintained. It is also great convenience from NB balloting point of view on a single part and not multiple.

Disposition:WG 2 accepts item 4A in document N1329, i.e. ITTF should be requested to publish AM-1 through AM-4 and COR-1 without further delay. WG 2 will decide when to republish 10646, and on whether to publish the amendments in process separately or not. In the mean time, approved WG 2 documents should be made available in the electronic form consolidating the different accepted amendments, corrigenda etc. for use by WG 2 and its liaison organizations..

Action Items:a) Mr. Bruce Paterson: To update 1223R - the textual part of 10646 -- to include all technical and

editorial amendments as a WG 2 standing document; this document will be placed on the web site.

b) Mr. Keld Simonsen: To update proposed Annex E revision (document N1360) to include all the character names from 10646 and its amendments and corrigenda - as a WG 2 standing document; this document will also be placed on the web site..

5.4Identification of versions of the standardPresentation:Mr. Mike Ksar: As a separate related item, X-consortium (owners of X-Windows protocol) has sent a query expressing a need to identify the different stable versions of the standard, which amendments and corrigenda are included etc. -- perhaps, a combination of existing identification sequences can be used to identify what is being conformed to.

Discussion:a) Dr. Asmus Freytag: Can make recommendation to include amendments till AM-5. It is

supposed to include the Hangul change (AM-5) plus other optional amendments etc.b) Mr. Johan van Wingen: Usually the stability of the standard involves including all the published

corrigenda and amendments.c) Mr. Bruce Paterson: Generally speaking Amendments are cumulative -- when we say AM-8, it

is supposed to include up to AM-8.d) Dr. Umamaheswaran: The difficulty is that if we examine some of the amendments like AM-1

and AM-2, they are architecture extensions that could be independently used. What does it mean then to state up to and including AM-5 etc.? If all the amendments are repertoire additions, there will NOT be a problem - but this is NOT the case.

Action Item:Mike Ksar: To send a suitable response to X Consortium based on the discussion.


6Status of documents sent to SC2

6.1DAM-5 (Hangul) to JTC 1Input Document:N1331 DAM 5 (Korean Hangul) Submittal to JTC1; Bruce Paterson, Project Editor; 1996-03-14N1332 DAM 5 diagram attachment - BMP Revised Layout; Bruce Paterson, Project Editor; 1996-03-14

Presentation:Mr. Bruce Paterson: Document N1331 contains the DAM-5 text submitted to JTC 1 by the editor. It includes the text to be included in the explanatory report to be included with the DAM-5 ballot in JTC 1.

Discussion:a) Mr. Michael Everson: Referring to the statement -- 'it was not certain if Ireland's disapproval

could be reversed ...' in document N1331, Ireland is not in a position to change its ballot at this meeting. We will submit our comments at the JTC 1 ballot.

b) Professor Kyongsok Kim: On pages 2 and 3, the character names have an annotation such as (g) for hex A8. Would like to know how these were included. At the Tokyo meeting, no decision was made on whether to include the annotation or not. The stated preference was to have the information in Table form.

c) Mr. Bruce Paterson: The only question that could be raised is whether such annotations should appear in Annex P only or could they be included in each name.

d) Mr. Takayuki Sato: There may be confusion on what is being talked about. We are only talking about the annotation part.

e) Dr. Umamaheswaran: Pointed out the action item from the minutes of meeting 29, document N1303 - page 16 - item b. The four parties identified were to come to an agreement on the naming and reflect the decision in the disposition of comments and the DAM text.

f) Mr. Mike Ksar: The editor did not receive any feedback on the issue, and we have to give the prerogative to the editor to take the right decision Delegates can make comments through their national bodies on the JTC 1 ballot response.

6.2pDAM-6 (Tibetan)Input Documents:N1295 Table of replies and national body feedback on pDAM6 - Tibetan Character Collection (SC2 N2655); SC2

Secretariat; 1995-12-21N1314 Updated Table of replies and national body feedback on pDAM6 - Tibetan Character Collection (SC2 N2655); SC2

Secretariat; 1996-01-09N1374 Update by SOAS on pDAM6 - Tibetan; Hugh Ross, U.K.; 1996-04-23N1378 Proposed Disposition of Comments - Tibetan pDAM6; China, Ireland, UK; 1996-04-23

Presentation:Mr. Mao Yong Gang introduced document N1378.

Document N1314 shows the updated table of replies: out of 33 members, 17 had approved (3 with comments), 2 disapproved (UK, Japan), 4 abstained and 10 did not reply. A breakdown of P and O members is not given. A group of experts from China, Ireland and the UK had met and prepared document N1378. This document, however, was not structured in the usual format of identifying the comment and the specific disposition related to that comment. Several new characters had been added based on some comments and several names had been changed, without an explanation as to how it may impact the 'approvals', or what ballot comment necessitated the changes etc.

Discussion:a) Mr. Bruce Paterson: It is a requirement of JTC 1 procedures that a 'disposition of comments'

document is required. The format is prescribed. One could arrange the material in document N1378 to identify in what manner the NB comments are individually disposed of. In the Table of Replies document N1314, there are two disapprovals. As a minimum one has to address the disapproval comments. If you have addressed the YES with comments - it is all the better.


b) Mr. Hugh Ross: The information you are seeking - point by point response to the comments - can be very easily derived --all the comments have been taken into account in preparing document N1378. The arrangement of the information in a different format is an editorial matter.

Mr. Hugh Ross volunteered to address each one of the ballot comments and point to the proposed disposition in document N1378.

A. Japan's disapproval: Attachment B - of document N1295: Japan was puzzled by the use of Dotted circles in the pDAM. To that extent we have added specific comments in N1378, explaining the use of the dotted circles in the vertical writing. An explanatory paragraph on page 2.

a) Mr. Takayuki Sato: Japan can accept the purpose of the dotted circle. We have a problem with use of presentation forms in the standard. Hence our negative vote will stay.

b) Dr. Asmus Freytag: Since the Japanese comments cannot be accommodated there is no required change to the pDAM-6 text.

B. UK disapproval: Attachment C of document N1295:The comments were marked as Technical (T.xx) and Editorial (E.xx). Each of these was considered.T.1: List of character names - the names have the form 'OR'.

a) Mr. Michel Suignard: The name changes seem to be fairly significant. Would like to be able to compare the names with existing pDAM text before we can say any comments. Also the use of 'apostrophes' is not acceptable.

b) Mr. Mao Yong Gang: Even if the names are considered to be better in the proposed revision, we cannot change the names - is that correct? -- The names are considered NORMATIVE - and since the pDAM has passed by a large majority it will be considered as a technical change.

c) Dr. Umamaheswaran: The subject matter of Tibetan was given to the ad hoc group of experts on Tibetan and the pDAM-6 text was prepared and sent out for ballot assuming the best knowledge was applied and consensus on all points was arrived at before the preparation of the document. If the content was not stable it should not have been recommended to be sent out as pDAM ballot.

d) Mr. Bruce Paterson: There is always a possibility to have a second pDAM. One of the reasons we went out with first pDAM was assuming that this proposal was in a hurry to go out to meet the requirements of Tibetan.

e) Dr. Asmus Freytag: The ballot results show that there is significant support. We have some proposals on improving the document. One set of comments happens to be on the Character Names -- they are normative. We do not have to be perfect in choosing the names -- if the current pDAM6 is NOT erroneous. If additional characters are required they can be treated as an additional proposal.

f) Mr. Mike Ksar: Can we accommodate the names related comments by Annex P entries?

g) Mr. Bruce Paterson: All the T.xx comments are related to names. The use of the word OR suggests in some cases that there are two characters being represented by the same code position. This misinterpretation has to be resolved.

h) Dr. Asmus Freytag: One way of resolving the concern of UK would be to add to the Annex P, some information that the use of the word OR is clarified -- that it is not to be interpreted to mean that there are two characters being identified.

i) Mr. Sven Thygesen: We did not recognize that there is a problem with the names by using the word OR. We would support the position expressed by UK.

j) Mr. Hugh Ross: There is also a delayed contribution from UK -- the names themselves should have been derived based on dictionary spelling of names. The current choice of names are not readily acceptable to the Tibetan experts.

k) Mr. Bruce Paterson: SOAS proposed names are based on the modern Transliteration practice. It may be more confusing to have more than one name with OR -- and adding more names in Annex P.


l) Mr. Mike Ksar / Dr. Asmus Freytag: If we put the names proposed by SOAS as the main name, it will be a technical change. Hence to put these names as Annex P entries will be more favorable. In addition we can also put a NOTE in the Annex P to explain the use of the word 'OR' in the names.

T.2 and T.3: The proposal is to use Phonetic Spellings for the character names. Expert advice were received by SOAS after the deadline for balloting on this pDAM.T.4: Suggestion for additional characters. We have also suggested that these characters can be added in the future without holding up the pDAM progression.T.5: Proposes addition of two characters to the Basic Set. We could treat it the same as T.4.T.6: There are two lists in Annex B -- B.1 - restricted in Level 2; and B.2 available in Level 3 and not in Level 2. This should be treated as an Editorial Error -- not technical.T.7: In Annex A there is a list of some combining characters. Editorially the annex information has to be updated to reflect the new or changes to collections.

a) Dr. Asmus Freytag: My personal inclination would be not to provide VERSIONING of the collections identifiers. This issue has been around even with other pDAMs.

b) Dr. Umamaheswaran: The collection identifiers uniquely identify the collections. They must be able to be relied on.

c) Mr. Bruce Paterson: It is not urgent to decide on this issue at this meeting -- though this pDAM identified this issue. WG 2 has to decide what to do For now, we will not accept T.7 for this pDAM.

Action item:Contributions are solicited on ' collection identifiers' - what happens to them with each pDAM, repertoire enhancements etc.

E.1: Editorial - We must get better quality FONTS for the DAM ballot.E.2 and E3 -- The GLYPH shape could be corrected as an editorial change - but not the NAME change.E.4 -- Technical - Spellings of names -- are all technical changes.

C. Canada - Comments accompanying approval:Dual glyphs in pDAM-6 - one was Calligraphic form and the other one was Typographical form. Both were shown. Accepted - Only one is proposed to be shown.

D Ireland - comments accompanying approval - Attachment A of document N1295:Item 1: Proposal is for a BASIC SET and an EXTENDED SET.

a) Mr. Michael Everson: Ireland believes that proposed N1378 satisfies the objections raised by the Attachment A. However, Ireland is disappointed by the way the matter is come to conclusion.

b) Dr. Umamaheswaran: Disagree with the repeated statement that Tibetan experts are not being heard. Would support the changing the name of the current table.

c) Mt. Michel Suignard: Suggested 'BASIC TIBETAN' to be consistent. Accepted,Item 2: Request for more characters. Treat it as future additions.Item 3: Request for more characters - for EXTENDED TIBETAN.Item 4: Inconsistencies in names or errors in the pDAM text are pointed out; proposed changed names are given. Our current view is that proposed names n document N1378 are better. Name changes could be entertained as part of the Annex P.item 5: Four characters are not right. Name changes could be entertained as part of Annex P.

E. China - comments accompanying approval - Attachment to document N1314:a) Mr. Nyima Trashi: China approved with comments. It agrees with future additions of

new characters. Would accept pDAM-6 as is - in principle. However, there are incorrect spellings of names in current proposal. These have to be fixed.

b) Mr. Mike Ksar: Propose treatment of additional characters as a future pDAM. Regarding names - would suggest using Annex P entries.

F. Other comments:Israel: Abstained -- said that if the concerned NB (if exists). We have to IGNORE this comment from Israel. ABSTAIN ?Italy: ABSTAIN. -- noted.


USA: General comment that the names could be improved is suggested without any particular suggestions. Changes should be in the Annex E - not proposing changes to the main code table.There were other countries who had Abstained also.

Disposition:a) Mr. Bruce Paterson: Volunteered to prepare a first disposition of comments draft after the

meeting. It can be circulated for review by interested parties before finalizing In the DAM. We will need the pro-forma for the name tables in Word 6.0 compatible format.

b) Mr. Michael Everson: There may be some "editorial changes" that could also be entertained during this exercise. Will work with the editor.

c) Mr. Mike Ksar: All the agreed upon changes to the pDAM during this meeting will be reflected. As to the name list and Annex P related items - the editor is entrusted with making the necessary editorial changes with the assistance of China, Unicode, UK and Ireland experts. Names can be changed only if these are considered to be editorial and the changes will not cause any of the existing approval ballots to become disapprovals.

Note: The ad hoc group on Tibetan - (Messrs. Nyima Trashi, DaWar Tsering, Tsering Choergyal, Michael Everson, Hugh McGregor Ross, and Mao Yong Gang) had met and discussed the disposition of comment prior to the above meeting discussion. After the meeting 30 discussion on the subject, Dr. Asmus Freytag and Mr. Michel Suignard of the Unicode Consortium also engaged in discussions with the ad hoc group -- and a consensus on what would be considered editorial, and what to include as parenthetical annotation versus what to include in Annex P, related to the naming of characters was arrived at. This consensus position will be communicated to the editor and will be reflected in the disposition of comments accompanying the DAM.

Relevant resolution:M30.14 (pDAM-6 on Tibetan): UnanimousWG 2 instructs its editor to create a disposition of comments document. It should be based on the pDAM-6 ballot responses in documents N1295 and N1314, and on the agreements reached at WG 2 meeting.M-30. WG 2 further instructs its editor to prepare a revised text of pDAM-6 reflecting the disposition of comments, and with camera ready copy of the code table to be provided by China, and forward it to SC2 secretariat for further processing in JTC1 as a draft Amendment to ISO/IEC 10646-1: 1993 (E).

6.3pDAM 7 (33 Additional Characters)Input Documents:N1315 Updated Table of replies and national body feedback on pDAM7 - Additional characters (SC2 N2656); SC2

Secretariat; 1996-01-09N1341 Proposed Disposition of Comments on pDAM 7; Bruce Paterson; 1996-04-01

Presentation:Mr. Bruce Paterson: Document N1315 shows that pDAM-7 was approved by SC 2 with 21 approvals (2 with comments), NO disapproval, one abstention and 11 no responses. A breakdown of P and O members is not given. Document N1341 contains the proposed disposition of comments.

Discussion:Alternative glyphs were suggested by Ireland. Current pDAM-7 consists of one. The Helsinki discussion was in favor of a consistent style -- Latin style versus Gaelic style. There is one more character (lower case g with dot above) which also has two different forms.

Disposition:The Latin style f with a dot above was accepted. This will be incorporated into DAM-7 text and forwarded for JTC 1 processing.


Relevant resolution:M30.3 (pDAM-7 on 33 Additional Characters): UnanimousWG2 accepts the disposition of ballot comments for pDAM-7 in document N1315 with the choice of shape which looks like the character LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S at x017F with a dot above added to it, for the character at x1E9B LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S WITH DOT ABOVE. Further WG 2 instructs its editor to prepare the final text of pDAM-7 and forward it to SC2 secretariat for further processing in JTC1 as a draft Amendment to ISO/IEC 10646-1: 1993 (E).

6.4pDAM 8 (CJK Annex)Input Documents:N1316 Updated Table of replies and national body feedback on pDAM8 - New informative annex on CJK Ideographs (SC2

N2657); SC2 Secretariat; 1996-01-09N1333 Revised Draft Text of CJK Annex - pDAM8 disposition of comments; IRG; 1996-03-20N1343 Proposed Disposition of Comments pDAM 8; T. Koike - Japan - Annex editor; 1996-03-29

Presentation:Mr. Takayuki Sato: Document N1316 containing the table of replies for pDAM-8 ballot in SC2, shows 16 approvals (3 with comments), 4 disapprovals, 2 abstentions and 11 no replies. Document N1343 contains the proposed disposition of comments from the co-editor of pDAM-8. A breakdown of P and O members is not given. Even though pDAM-8 was under ballot, a new text was already being prepared. Comments in document N1343 address all the ballot comments. Document N1333 contains the proposed revised text.

Discussion:a) Mr. Bruce Paterson: There are several clarification improvements that can be made to the

revised text. Clause 4 shows some examples with pairs of ideographs. Each text column has two separate columns. Some formatting improvements can be made to avoid potential confusion to a reader. Also re-sequencing of the ideographs based on sequential code position values would be needed. There will be some limited changes which will be formatting or editing from smoothing the English readability point of view.

b) Dr. Asmus Freytag: A note to explain what T-, J-, K- and G- are would also help.

Disposition:Accept the proposed DAM text and the disposition of comments - both documents are subject to formatting and editorial improvements before forwarding to JTC 1.

Relevant resolution:M30.4 (pDAM-8 - Annex on CJK unification procedures): UnanimousWG2 accepts the disposition of ballot comments for pDAM-8 in document N1343, and instructs its editor to prepare the final text of pDAM-8 (from the proposed text in document N1333) and forward it to SC2 secretariat for further processing in JTC1 as a draft Amendment to ISO/IEC 10646-1: 1993 (E).

7Non-repertoire Issues

7.110646 Corrigenda

7.1.1Marked up revised text portion of 10646Input Document:N1223 10646-1 Corrigendum No. 1 (First Draft); Bruce Paterson, project editor; 1995-06-15N1223R 10646-1 Corrigendum No. 1 (First Draft); Bruce Paterson, project editor; 1995-07-09

Presentation:Mr. Bruce Paterson: Document N1223 shows the updated textual portion of 10646 incorporating accepted editorial corrigenda - set 1. There has been no feedback on document N1223. Currently it includes all the editorial corrigenda. It can be enhanced to include the four amendments also. The intent is not to include amendments that are under ballot. The updated document can be made into a standing document. The title will be changed to reflect what it contains - to avoid confusion with Technical Corrigendum 1.


Action Item:Mr. Bruce Paterson - to update document N1223R to reflect Amendments 1 to 4 and COR-1, and make it a WG 2 standing document. (Note: Some more editorial corrigenda accepted during M30 may be candidates for inclusion in N1223R).

7.1.2Editorial corrigenda - 2nd cumulative listInput Document:N1288 ISO/IEC 10646-1 Editorial Corrigenda - 2nd Cumulative List - Issue 1; Bruce Paterson; 1996-01-03

Presentation:Mr. Bruce Paterson: Document N1288 contains a new cumulative list of all editorial corrigenda from previous meetings. Document N1223R reflects the text incorporated from the list included in document N1288. New items will be added to document N1288 till a new version of document N1223R is produced. There is a slight error in the Arabic Left / Right pointing quotation mark - will be corrected in the next version of document N1288.

Action Item:Mr. Bruce Paterson: To update document N1223R reflecting contents of document N1288. (Note: Some more editorial corrigenda accepted during M30 may be candidates for inclusion in document N1288).

7.1.3Updated Annex Einput Document:N1360 Annex E Updated per Technical Corrigendum 1 (Æ); Keld Simonsen; 1996-04-22

Presentation:Mr. Keld Simonsen: Document N1360 is a consolidation of all the names in Annex E of the standard, incorporating all the accepted corrigenda and amendments. This document was not discussed as to its content at this meeting. See indirect comments under item 5.3 above, under publication schedule related discussion, and the resulting action items.

7.2Naming of characters

7.2.1Editorial corrigenda regarding naming of charactersInput Document:N1287 Naming of characters - draft editorial corrigenda; Bruce Paterson; 1996-01-03

Presentation:Mr. Bruce Paterson: Document N1287 contains a few words to clarify the text to answer the question on translatability -- to avoid future questions such as those that were raised by Canada in the previous meetings.

Discussion:a) Mr. Johan van Wingen: The words could perhaps be improved. One important point - the

translations should be technically equivalent. What do the words 'intended to identify ...' mean?

b) Dr. Umamaheswaran: How can you establish technical equivalence? Canada will be satisfied to see the proposed editorial corrigenda accepted.

c) Dr. Asmus Freytag: I have seen Swedish translations -- it is quite possible to interpret the translated texts differently.

d) Mr. Michael Everson: The current set of rules do not help from linguistic points of view. The second part of the proposed text should not be included in the Annex.

e) Mr. Bruce Paterson: How could you set up a conformance test for such a technical equivalence? One would have considerable difficulty in establishing such a rule. Some examples like 'LATIN CAPITAL LETTER ...' do indicate the properties in some cases. This text was accepted from the resolution in Tokyo meeting. We should not be arguing about it.

f) Mr. Mike Ksar: I propose that the text be accepted without any changes.


Disposition:Accept proposed text in document N1287.

Relevant resolution:M30.1 (naming guidelines): UnanimousWith reference to document N1287 from the editor, WG 2 accepts the proposal in the document, and instructs its editor to add it to the cumulative list of editorial corrigenda in document N1288.

7.2.2Character naming principlesInput Document:N1329 Why character names are important; Michael Everson, expert contribution; 1996-02-02

Presentation:Mr. Michael Everson: The principle of when to use annotation versus when to put information in Annex P is not too clear. I have seen examples of both being used in recent proposals. (The copy that is distributed has unfortunately =46 instead of F; due to e-mail problem in getting the document to the convener). If WG 2 cannot come to decisions at this meeting, I would prefer to see it being tabled in Quebec.

Discussion:a) Mr. Mike Ksar: If WG2 wants to discuss at this meeting we will proceed.b) Mr. Johan van Wingen: I need some more time to study this paper. Would like to discuss it

before Quebec meeting.

Action item:National bodies are to feedback to Mr. Michael Everson on document N1329.

7.3Draft pDAM on Unique IdentifiersInput Document:N1289R Draft pDAM on Unique Identifiers for Characters; Bruce Paterson; 1996-01-29

Presentation:Mr. Bruce Paterson: Document N1289 contains the proposed pDAM text on unique identifiers in response to the resolution M29.4 from Tokyo meeting. Note: the text on page 2 has erroneously interchanged the + and - in the identifiers in document N1289. A corrected text has been made available.

Discussion:a) Mr. Johan van Wingen: SC 22 may not be happy with the proposal - it may not be what was

expected by them. This was initiated by an unfortunate resolution from SC 22 and if it is not acceptable to SC 22, we may not be in a good position It is not prudent to move forward with this proposal without studying carefully the negative aspects of this proposal. The proposal was discussed earlier in SC 22 and was rejected. On behalf of NNI, a paper can be prepared commenting on this document during review in SC2.

b) Mr. Bruce Paterson - as a pDAM it will be sent to the NBs. There were SC22/WG 20 experts who did participate at the Tokyo ad hoc meeting.

c) Dr. Umamaheswaran: This item was discussed also in conjunction with the issue of translatability of names in WG 2. The requirement is not just from SC 22.

d) Mr. Michel Suignard: The various points were discussed in Tokyo and there is no reason to hold back on it.

e) Mr. Takayuki Sato: The request originated from SC 22. We need to write a liaison statement - a letter to SC 22 - along with progressing the document.

f) Dr. Asmus Freytag: In the process of introducing the proposal, other parties can become interested also in the proposal. Unicode consortium has become interested and does support this proposal.

Note: the resolution text M29.4 along with the text describing the identifier that was accepted in principle at the Tokyo meeting was indeed circulated to SC 22 by Mr. Arnold Winkler, soon after the


Tokyo meeting, via e-mail. SC 22 has been alerted to it. There has been no feedback officially or unofficially on the scheme proposed for the identifier itself. Perhaps, the pDAM will trigger formal response and comments from SC 22.

Action item:Mr. Johan van Wingen, as liaison officer from SC 2 to SC 22, is to send the proposed pDAM text in document N1289R along with a liaison letter, immediately to SC 22 requesting their feedback - by middle of May, to be able circulate the feedback prior to August 96 WG 2 meeting.

Relevant Resolution:M30.2 (pDAM-9 on Unique Identifiers): Denmark AbstainedWith reference to document N1289R on Unique Identifiers, WG 2 instructs its editor to prepare the final pDAM-9 text, and forward it to the SC 2 secretariat for SC 2 ballot and information to SC 2 and SC 2/WG 2 liaison organizations.

7.4Proposed Hebrew entries for Annex PInput Document:N1346 Entries for new Annex P of 10646-1; Standardization Institution of Israel SII; 1996-04-01

Presentation:Mr. Mike Ksar: Mr. Stefan Fuchs, Israel, had sent document N1346 for WG 2 consideration. It contains proposed annotations to some Hebrew characters to be included in the Annex P.

Discussion:a) Mr. Michael Everson: Some of the proposed annotations are short enough to be introduced as

parenthetical annotations. They could also be introduced in the Annex P. Longer complicated ones definitely go into Annex P. We seem to be diverging from short annotations in the main body and explanatory text in Annex P.

b) Dr. Asmus Freytag: In Tokyo we had a discussion on this topic. The direction being taken is to include any comments or annotation in the Annex. Suggested that consistent wordings be used so that the information from 10646 Annex P can be easily interpreted by users of 10646 -- for example, to interpret the information as an ALIAS.

c) Mr. Bruce Paterson: The last two items have the words 'or HEBREW...'. Need some clarification as to what is meant. It could be a continuation from or SILUQ from previous line. I have seen abbreviations such as 'a.k.a. for also known as'. We could use such terms consistently.

d) Mr. Johan van Wingen: Not sure what is meant by using upper case for the character names included in Annex P. Would like to get some guidance as to what to follow for similar contributions on Ligatures he is planning to submit at a later date.

Disposition:WG 2 accepts the request, after getting clarification from Israel on inconsistencies / confusing points.

Action Items:a) Mr. Stefan Fuchs: To clarify what is meant for the last two entries x05C0 and x05C3.b) Mr. Bruce Paterson: To include the updated proposal to the collection of accepted editorial

corrigenda to be included in the standard at a later date.


7.5Principles and ProceduresInput Documents:N1302 Update of N1241 - Summary of WG2 work items; Sven Thygesen, Denmark; 1995-11-10N1352 Updated N1352 - Proposal Summary Form & Procedures; Sven Thygesen; 1996-04-26

Presentation:Mr. Sven Thygesen: Document N1352 contains two changes compared to document N1252 (the Principles and Procedures). Some further editorial corrections were suggested at the meeting and these will be incorporated into the document. Remove the proposed last paragraph on page 1. References to N1252 should be changed to N1352. A proforma for a checklist of the various stages that a proposal may go through is also being prepared and will be discussed in Quebec city.

Document N 1302 - WG 2's spreadsheet containing the status of various script proposals - with updates reflecting the status of the documents discussed till the end of meeting 30 was made available before the end of the meeting.

8Repertoire issues

8.1Indic and South East Asian Scripts

8.1.1Extended Level 2 for Indic and South East Asian scriptsInput Documents:N1320 Simple Use of Indic and South East Asian Scripts in Extended Level 2; Hugh McG. Ross, U.K.; 1995-12-20N1373 Update on N1320 - Indic & Southeast Asian Scripts; Hugh Ross, U.K.; 1996-04-23

Presentation:Mr. Hugh McGregor Ross: The reason for these documents is to ask WG 2 to take a look at some serious problems facing Indic and SE Asian scripts. Indic scripts were introduced into UCS first by John Clews, based on input from Library of Congress and Mrs. Ross (considered to be an expert on Indic scripts at Linotype). With the help of Mr. Lloyd Anderson, it was further carried forward in UCS. The Unicode Consortium picked up the work further and we have a solid base for the several Indic scripts in the current standard. Subsequently, my interest on these scripts have grown. I have studied the Indic writing system and have put in working papers into WG 2 on points that need WG 2 attention. Most of these papers have been passed over. There are two areas of difficulty in the areas of use of these in computers, and their encoding. Document N1320 addresses the first concern. Several characters appear as if generated or composed from components -- one or more, though they are standalone characters on their own. In presentation forms these may not cause much problems. It does pose problems from other aspects of processing. The second aspect of the problem is the Conjuncts. The need to recognize them as conjuncts is there in computing. Unicode has its own way of dealing with these issues. What I have shown in these papers is that there are exception conditions that the Unicode methods are not able to deal with. Not dealing with these exceptions poses particular difficulties in some aspects of processing such as searching, matching etc. The paper proposes a technique for simpler computing implementations. A level 2 implementation will be needed. The user will be able to distinguish between the Unicode way and an alternative simpler way -- and will have a choice. The concepts of coding conventions and presentation conventions have been introduced and these are complex for the Indic scripts. Annexes show these conventions in detail and a comparison of the implementation levels of the different methods. My request to WG 2 is to take a decision on whether a simplified form of coding these scripts can be accepted in Level 2 for simpler implementations. Based on some discussion with Mr. Bruce Paterson, an alternative would be to include a proposed clause in the main body of the standard. The standard should not be a place to prohibit spelling errors -- spelling errors should be permitted. Composition techniques can be considered as Spelling Errors -- which is openly encouraged by the Unicode.

Discussion:a) Mr. Bruce Paterson: the current Annex B is simply a list of combining characters. Advisory

material such as is proposed does not belong in Annex B. The more important question is what sort of advisory material should be added to the standard.


b) Dr. Asmus Freytag: The document requires much wider review - not just by the delegates at this meeting only, but by more experts.

Action Item:National bodies are to study and feedback on contributions N1320 and N1373.

8.1.2Harmonization of Indic and South East Asian scriptsInput Documents:N1321 Harmonization of Indic and South East Asian Scripts; Hugh McG. Ross, U.K.; 1996-01-25N1376 Update of N1321 - Harmonization of Indic and Southeast Asian Scripts; Hugh Ross; 1996-04-18

Presentation:Mr. Hugh Ross: We have several scripts of Indic and other South Asian scripts, which are well harmonized -- being derived from Brahmi. Mr. Rick McGowan has done some work in Unicode TR #3. As soon as we go beyond the presentation aspects of these scripts - such as Sorting, Word matching etc. the situation is much more complex than it is with other scripts. I am fascinated with the complexity of these scripts. Although it is not our job to deal with programming matters, it is our job is to avoid forcing complexity on programming. Development of comprehensive software which does as good a job for Western scripts is going to be expensive due to their complexity. The real value of harmonizing these scripts is an economic one. For example, by having a constant offsets between the different harmonized coding. I have spelled out the peculiar difficulties in this paper. One of the complexity is the SANDHI -- changing the spellings at the joints of words. Processes such as word counting have particular difficulties in having to UNDO the SANDHI-s. I have highlighted the inherent difficulties in dealing with processing these scripts. The proposal is to produce harmonized versions of several of these scripts to be able to deal with the complexity of these scripts. Three scripts are identified as examples showing how they can be harmonized. Additional tables with harmonized scripts are also shown for consideration. Once I learned how to write the Indic calligraphic scripts it was easier to draw most of the characters. I have shown that these can be harmonized -- the three we know a lot about - Burmese, Sinhala and Khmer - I would like see progressed as pDAMs. The other fifteen or so, we should also produce pDAMs. Merely producing only committee documents does not get us too far. What is necessary is to find some way of tracking down the right experts in the different countries or organizations such as Library of Congress involved and get the scripts right. I have identified several problems that can only be dealt with by getting the experts out. An example is with Mongolian -- our friends from China are able to get more funding to work on the topics is because the work is being raised to the pDAM stage. Thanks to School of African and Oriental Studies (SAOS), London University -- for doing the work on Tibetan. The report consists of research done over several years and request that the work be carried forward.

Discussion:a) Mr. Mike Ksar: I would like to express our appreciation for the work that has been done. This

document also requires reviews by the national bodies. It cannot be done at this stage - they are not ready for being a pDAM.

b) Mr. Bruce Paterson: There is no suggestion that they be made into a pDAM right away at this meeting. At least three scripts covered - SInhala, Burmese and Khmer -- are to be given consideration. At least Sinhala and Burmese are covering several millions of people today. Although they are not great buyers of computers today, they should be given some priority to do service to the people.

c) Dr. Asmus Freytag: I would like to support the expression of priority from UK. Would like to see someone make a list of the scripts and assess the levels of stability of each one. In the process of raising the visibility of a number of these scripts -- for example as pDAM -- more experts will be drawn to it. The Unicode consortium had put out technical reports in previous years -- Mongolian and Tibetan are now being addressed by the ad hoc groups in WG 2. Once some of these go to the national bodies through the ISO channels there is more support and expertise from them. It may be a more appropriate way to proceed to get more interest and progress on these.

d) Mr. Michael Everson: Whatever we can do to progress some of these scripts -- for example, Burmese, Khmer and Sinhala - I will be willing to do.


e) Mr. Johan van Wingen: Only recently we are dealing with the Indic scripts. At the Antalya meeting we were exposed to the ISCII by Mr. Subramanian, along with Mr. John Clews. Thai-Latin and Latin-Devanagari are some 8859-xx parts that are under consideration. I compared the Indian standard with 10646 and could use those from the Indian standard except its names. The proposal from Mr. John Clews was that the ISCII standard should be copied into 10646 deprecating the current assignment of Devanagari in 10646. The appropriate national bodies are to be kept informed.

f) Mr. Mike Ksar: We progress these proposals with the proposal summary forms attached to these scripts. The Indian national body delegates are certainly being kept aware of what is happening in SC 2. They have NOT come to WG 2 after the Antalya meeting, nor have they responded to ISO ballots.

Action item:Mr. Michael Everson: In addition to the proposal summary forms to be attached to each one of the proposed scripts -- Burmese, Sinhala and Khmer -- necessary available backup material should also be referenced.

8.2Additional Latin characters

8.2.1LivonianInput Document:N1322 Proposal for addition of Latin characters for Livonian; Everson, Ruppel & Metra; 1995-11-01

Presentation:Mr. Michael Everson: Document N1322 is a request (joint Finland, Ireland, Latvian proposal) for 10 Latin characters for Livonian. These fully composed characters are part of the new Latvian standard LVS-18 (1994) and are part of CEN/TC304's mandatory minimum sub-repertoire of 10646 (ENV 1973). A code table showing their current use is included. I request that these be included in the standard.

Discussion:a) Mr. Johan van Wingen: We must be careful dealing with requests for more Latin characters.

There is a list of about 1500 Latin characters from Professor Tisla (?) - which was postponed or rejected for inclusion in 10646. A 1989 Census showed the number of Livonian speaking population to be very small. How can we justify including a script used by a small population and reject others? For example, some mathematical symbols are used by a much larger community. If the argument for inclusion is based on history - then we have to be more careful. Several languages have gone through spelling reforms. Latvian has gone through a spelling reform - over a period of time - it has changed. There are several statements in document N1322 that are not precise. Would like to suggest to the originators and the authors requesting more precision and better references to different matters and resubmit to WG 2.

b) Mr. Michel Suignard: Several of the proposed characters can be covered using combination sequences.

c) Dr. Asmus Freytag: Unicode consortium is on the side of being careful - use composition wherever possible using Level 3. Support for additional pre-composed characters is very small from the implementing industry interests. The additional benefits derived by supporting fully composed characters is minimal - unless there is wide spread or large scale use of these characters.

d) Mr. Bruce Paterson: There was earlier a mention of about 1500 pre-composed characters. We should probably have a complete collection of all candidate pre-composed characters, and arrive at some criteria that can be used to decide what to do with all of them.

e) Mr. Keld Simonsen: While we are considering languages like Runic etc. which are dead languages, and if we say that there must be people using the languages before we can consider, we should not be even considering proposals like Runic. If Latvians do not get the fully composed characters, they will create their own character sets. Livonian is an official language of Latvia. We do give support to even dead languages - why not for some living languages even if the population is small enough. Level 3 is not good enough for their convenience. The proposal summary form claims that it is a legal requirement - would like to


see some evidence. Would not like to see statements like 'if WG2 does not entertain the request other bodies such as CEN will create them' etc. The proposal summary form says that Level 3 implementation is not acceptable by Latvia. Would like to see some explanation. Let us not confuse the discussion with Runic. The proposal summary form suggests Category A. We should treat the collection of all Latin characters - like what Mr. Bruce Paterson has suggested.

f) Mr. Michael Everson: My understanding about the 1500 characters mentioned by Mr. Johan van Wingen - is that they were all not in use any more. We should certainly be careful about characters that are not in use any more. I am sure we can get Mr. Imans Metra to provide evidence about the legal requirement. We should entertain inclusion of these characters on the basis of Latvian request. Latvia is not an ISO member - they have requested Ireland and Finland to represent them. The mention about work going on in CEN is not to be mis-interpreted by WG 2 - it should be considered as information. Implementation of Level 3 requires some technology that is not affordable by some of these countries. Would like to see what is the population number that will make the minimum bar for acceptance by WG2. WG 2 has an obligation to support minority language users as well. It cannot be based on statements like "it must be in a computer implementation before it can get into 10646". The rationale behind the statement that Level 3 is not acceptable in Latvia is that most computers used in Latvia are 8-bit based and would like to see one to one mapping to existing implementations of the existing Latvian national standard - the standard was published in 1994 in Latvia - was created perhaps in 1992 (LVS 18-92).

g) Dr. Asmus Freytag: We should recognize pre-composed forms of different kinds -- Latin pre-composed being one kind. The implication that those who are opposed to suggestions of pre-composed forms are somehow opposed to minority users of the world is certainly wrong. Most pre-composed forms that are in today's standard are there only because of compatibility with the existing standards. 10646 already has made several compositions possible and they are already coded in the standard. The requests should be considered in totality.

h) Mr. Hugh Ross: The request has come to us from a recently formed standards committee - Latvian authorities are just starting up in this field. We have to be sympathetic to requests from newly formed or upcoming country standards groups. The first three of the requests are mandatory for Livonian and the other three are optional for Livonian. I suggest that we accept the mandatory letters for Livonian.

i) Mr. Takayuki Sato: If we are going to have a holding bucket for characters - I would like to see a review of all characters that are in the holding pattern. We do have a bucket for symbols - but we have not looked at when to code them. We should ask the question whether it is time to encode them or not?

j) Mr. Mike Ksar: We have not certainly looked at the buckets (collections of accepted characters but not processed) from view point of when to encode - we have been adding more to the collections.

k) Dr. Asmus Freytag: We should not be examining each character after it has been accepted for inclusion in the bucket.

l) Mr. Michael Everson: Would be happy to work with Mr. Sven Thygesen on making such standing documents work well.

m) Mr. Sven Thygesen: : Such a holding bucket document can become one of the WG 2 standing documents. Would like to add some 'application knowledge' to be added to the spreadsheet document, and welcomes the offer of assistance from Mr. Michael Everson. Also, suggest that the newer version of the proposal summary form be used.

Disposition:Mr. Mike Ksar: In view of the above discussion I would like to suggest:

a) Request the submitters to provide additional supporting documents for statements/claims made in the document

b) Based on the additional information and based on Mr. Bruce Paterson's suggestion to get a collection of all Latin pre-composed characters, WG 2 can take a look at all of them together.


c) Meanwhile, if Latvia is using an 8-bit code they can continue using it - the composition techniques of 10646 is available immediately for encoding the characters they have requested.

d) I would prefer that WG 2 not entertain requests for small collections of pre-composed characters especially when there is Level 3 coding possibility.

Action Item:Latvia, Ireland and Finland - the joint proposers are to provide additional supporting documents to address the various concerns expressed at this meeting to permit WG 2 to better evaluate the proposal.

8.2.2Croatian poetryInput Document:N1325 Proposal and Summary for addition of Latin characters; Kardalev, Jerman-Blazic & Everson; 1996-01-16

Presentation:Mr. Michael Everson: Document N1325 is a request (joint Ireland, FYR Macedonia and Slovenia proposal) for 6 additional characters -- these are six pre-composed Latin characters that are missing from the collection that is used in Croatian poetry. Other characters needed are all in the standard. These six characters seem to have somehow been missed. Some are also used for Inuktitut writing using the Latin alphabet.

Discussion:a) Mr. Johan van Wingen: I would agree that these may be added to the collection. Would like

also point to more and more characters coming from the transliteration field.b) Mr. Hugh Ross: The use of these characters is known for a long time. The initial decision was

based on considerations of whether the character was for transliteration purposes only or natively etc. The principle used at that time was that if the characters were for transliteration purposes, composition techniques should be used.

c) Mr. Mike Ksar: According to Mr. Hugh Ross, these characters were once considered by WG 2 -- but they were NOT missed. The conclusion at that time was Level 3 can be used.

d) Mr. Michael Everson: N 418 - contains these characters and have been considered before. The point is that these are not just used for transliteration. These are used on their own in Croatian poetry. It so happens that these are also used in transliteration.

e) Mr. Ratislav Kardalev: These are used in Croatian poetry.f) Mr. Hugh Ross: A clear distinction was made in the earlier work on use of various marks on the

basis of their use. They were considered to be different from the accent marks, and they were considered not to be part of the writing system. The use of marks for poetry, for identifying the tones etc. were not to be included for consideration as pre-composed characters.

Disposition:Mr. Mike Ksar: We should not entertain this request -- reject.

8.2.3RomanianInput Document:N1361 Proposal for Addition of Latin Characters; Romanian Standards Institute; 1996-04-12

Presentation:Ms. Alexandrina Statescu: Romanian has the letters S, s, T and t with Comma Below. There are other scripts which have similar characters - but they are with Cedilla. Romanian language does not use Cedilla. There are letters with Cedilla in 10646 and not a Comma Below. The request is for these four letters with Comma Below to be added to UCS to support Romanian.

Discussion:a) Mr. Bruce Paterson: The characters we already have S, s, T and t with Cedilla in 10646 - could

be used for the requested characters. The proposal we came to was to add a note in Annex P - that the existing characters with Cedilla could be also used as Comma Below - they are the same characters which are imaged slightly differently.


b) Dr. Asmus Freytag: The Unicode standard - has an alias list - the forms using a Comma Below is considered to be glyph variants of the characters with Cedilla Below. If we need to identify this for Romanian we can add such a notation in the Annex P.

c) Mr. Michael Everson: The unification of these characters with those with Cedilla Below is false. In the case of 8859-xx, some countries with the same characters are happy with the unification. In case of Turkey we have S with Cedilla Below and it is incorrect to write with Comma Below. In case of bilingual texts with Turkish and Romanian, we will run into problems -- because two separate glyphs are required. By coding these as separate characters, we will correct a long standing problem.

d) Mr. Keld Simonsen: I agree with Mr. Peterson's comments. I would like see if the glyph shown having a disjoint comma under S, instead of a joint comma (like Cedilla), is just a printing related item or not.

e) Mr. Hugh Ross: It is a well known error to unify the Cedilla Below and the Common Below. It is also well known that it is an error to write the Cedilla Below and Comma Below interchangeably. I would suggest that in order to correctly serve the Central European language writings the Comma Below should be considered separately. I agree with Mr. Michael Everson that the unification is wrong.

f) Mr. Michel Suignard: Latin-2, has been used in Romania. The S with Cedilla has been used. If we decide to code S with a comma separately it will have implications on existing implementations -- both existing software and existing data will have migration problems.

g) Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis: Romania has NOT used Latin 2 because of the Cedilla problem. They have caused localized version of the software -- perhaps derived from Latin 2. It will perhaps be called Latin x. I do not anticipate any migration problems.

h) Mr. Johan van Wingen: I gave the same answer as Mr. Bruce Paterson did. We had the same problem with 6937 as well as 8859. There are similar characters in Czech also. These are considered as Glyph variants. In Turkish I have seen a Cedilla or a Dot Below is used as glyph variants. We should not add characters if these are indeed only Glyph variants. I would support the inclusion of the annotation in Annex P. Latin-2 is not going to be changed. If Romania wants to have a code table of their own, the implication is that the software etc. based on Latin 2 cannot be used in Romania - and there will be an additional cost for Romanian localization based on Latin-x etc.

i) Ms. Alexandrina Statescu: We wanted to adopt Latin-2, but could not because of these characters had a Cedilla under these characters. We are going ahead with Comma Below. There is a space between the S and the comma. I do not know the history behind the unification of the Comma Below and Cedilla. I would like to discuss the feedback with our colleagues in Romania and report back to WG 2.

j) Mr. Michael Everson: I would agree with Mr. Bruce Paterson to put a note in the Annex P. I can work with Romania to enhance their proposal identifying the need for these as separate characters.

k) Mr. Mike Ksar: If you are processing a multilingual text using Turkish and Romanian it will not be possible to distinguish between the two. As part of the investigation request that Romania get the opinion of Turkish experts also. The fact that there is a need to include Turkish and Romanian together should also be mentioned. Also, please take into consideration the backward compatibility using Latin 2 in Romania. There may be implementation impacts.

Disposition:Await feedback from Romania on reasons why the characters cannot be unified with Cedilla for their use, and treat the proposed characters as glyph variants of the already coded characters with Cedilla.

Action Item:Romania is to take into consideration the feedback received at this meeting and inform WG 2 on whether they need these characters separately or can stay with the current unification of Cedilla with Comma Below, including considerations for impact on Latin-2 based implementation for Romanian. Romania is also encouraged to consult with Turkish experts.


8.3Additional Cyrillic characters

8.3.1Macedonian charactersN1323 Proposal and Summary for addition of Cyrillic characters; Kardalev, Jerman-Blazic & Everson; 1996-01-16

Presentation:Mr. Ratislav Kardalev: Document N1323 identifies four combined characters CYRILLIC CAPITAL and SMALL letters IE WITH GRAVE, and CAPITAL and SMALL letters I WITH GRAVE, required to write the Macedonian language. The document contains the names, shapes and suggested code positions x04FC through x04FF, in the BMP WG 2 is requested to encode these in UCS.

Discussion:a) Mr. Johan van Wingen: We have requirements in 8859-x work on Macedonian. The proposed

characters come as a surprise new requirements. It may be that Macedonia may like to have more precise spelling - and hence the need for the four accented Cyrillic characters. Suggest another bucket for Cyrillic pre-composed collections as well. If we allow for stressing marks etc. the next step would be opening the door for all sorts of marked characters.

b) Mr. Michel Suignard: In document N1323, the proposal seems to be for transliteration purposes.

c) Dr. Asmus Freytag: The evidence presented document N1323 is compelling enough to include these characters for further consideration by WG 2. It may fall into what is called Compatibility Characters in Unicode consortium.

d) Mr. Hugh Ross: The two documents -- N1323 and N1324 -- illustrate very well the point I was making earlier. The first one - the set of four characters - is required for natural writing of the Macedonian language. There is no question at all, in my view, that the four in document N1323 should be included in the standard. I am not sure document N1324 falls into the same category.

e) Mr. Bruce Paterson: A suggestion has been made that the four characters in document N1323 have been accepted for inclusion in the bucket. A code position assignment has been requested - I am opposed to such assignments now. We should assign code positions ONLY when we are ready to produce a pDAM. Looking at code table 12 of the standard, why don't we place them at some of the holes in the code table? Look at table 10 and 13, there is a vacant space. The proposed code positions is a very bad place to put these characters. It does not matter where they are -- as long as they are in the same row as the other Cyrillic characters.

f) Mr. Mike Ksar: I support Mr. Bruce Paterson's view. Would like to get all the NB experts review this document. A provisional code position means that there is a risk of using them in implementations. The recommendation is to try the private use area and experiment with these first. Would like to get some guidelines (like what Mr. Hugh Ross summarized) put into the standing document on Principles and Procedures. Can we compose the requested characters? The answer seems to be YES. As far as document N1323 is concerned - the characters can be accepted for further consideration by WG 2 -- to be included in a collection - not for immediate coding.

g) Mr. Keld Simonsen - We could support that position. At this point in time we can only give preliminary code point allocations -- we need feedback from all NBs. There are provisional coding also for some characters for example the Object Replacement Character. We should issue a similar cautionary note for other characters also. We are also interested in the criterion that is behind Mr. Hugh Ross's statement. We would like to see the rules for when a pre-composed characters would be considered for inclusion in the standard, when it would be considered as candidates as composite sequences etc. We should then look at the various stages - of how a character request progresses from the initial request to the final encoding stage either as an Amendment or in the final standard. We have accepted the name, the character repertoire, but there is a disagreement on where the four characters might belong.


h) Mr. Michel Suignard: How can we say on one hand to support the provisional code position and on the other hand give no provisional code position. We could probably send it for pDAM straight away. There still seems to be disagreement on where the coding has to be.

i) Mr. Michael Everson: Newspaper evidences have been attached. These are high frequency use characters. They are used every day in today's computers in Macedonia. I would like to see all sorts of pre composed characters. It would be less irritating for several of us if the criteria for - when a pre-composed character is a candidate for consideration of the standard or not. Also, there is some urgency for encoding these in the standard. Not placing in a collection. We could accept the characters for encoding the characters and giving the provisional code position, assuming that the Macedonian requirement has been accepted. With all the provisions expressed by the convener, I suggest we accept the repertoire as well as the proposed coding provisionally.

j) Ms. Borka Jermain-Blazic: These characters were in N418 - officially requested to WG 2. They were refused at that time, stating that they are not well defined. The requirement is still on WG2's plate. Why are we treating this as an exception? Some characters have been accepted and assigned code positions, others have been accepted and NOT assigned code positions. If the national bodies are given a copy of the document the NBs can give the feedback.

k) Mr. Sven Thygesen: We should be consistent -- if we have provided code positions to other characters that we may have accepted.

l) Mr. Mike Ksar: The comment such as what Mr. Bruce Paterson made is why we should get feedback from the national body. This is not an exception. We have accepted some other scripts and not assigned code positions even provisionally.

m) Dr. Asmus Freytag: In our discussion earlier we seem to have accepted the four characters provisionally. I would still go ahead and provisionally accept the provisional encoding. I would like to express that this is still to be discussed within the Unicode consortium. If things are not acceptable during the discussion we would request withdrawing the provisional code positions.

n) Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis: If we assign provisional code positions, there is a risk for some implementations going ahead. Why cannot we do the same thing for Romanian characters also? According to the minutes was there a resolution or an action item?

o) Dr. Umamaheswaran: I agree with the view that the provisional code position can be confirmed based on feedback requested from the national bodies.

Disposition:WG2 accepts the four characters in document N1323, their shapes and provisionally the code positions. The four characters will be put into a collection of Cyrillic characters for future encoding in the standard.

Action Items:a) National bodies and liaison organizations to WG 2: To review the proposal in document N1323.b) Mr. Sven Thygesen - To work with Mr. Hugh Ross and document the guidelines / criteria that

were used in the creation of the first edition of the standard, for deciding when a pre-composed character was considered for inclusion directly versus when it would be left as Level 3 composition encoding.

c) Ad Hoc group on Principles and Procedures: The Principles and Procedures document is to be enhanced to indicate how a proposal progresses through different stages in WG 2 from the initial proposal stage to the final publication. A description of how the relevant information is captured (possibly in document N1302) as each proposal progresses through the different stages should be included.

Relevant resolution:M30.6 (Additional Cyrillic characters): Greece AbstainedWith reference to documents N418 and N1323, WG 2 provisionally accepts the proposed additional four Cyrillic characters, their names and shapes, for possible future encoding in ISO/IEC 10646, and invites the national bodies and liaison organizations to comment on the code positions proposed in document N1323.


8.3.2Additional Cyrillic combined charactersInput Document:N1324 Proposal and Summary for addition of Cyrillic characters and block; Kardalev, Jerman-Blazic & Everson; 1996-01-

16

Presentation:Mr. Ratislav Kardalev: Document N1324 proposes additional 80 accented Cyrillic combined characters for the Cyrillic Extended block.

Discussion:a) Mr. Johan van Wingen: In document N1324 there are three categories of characters.

Some are tone marks etc. and would be candidate for composition only. There are others which are Accent marks. There is a third category of characters which is somewhere in between. These seem to have been taken from a reference which has been overtaken by another reference and are now obsolete. The whole of Cyrillic character set was discussed several times. In the project team of CEN and other discussions, these characters were NOT included at all. Why are we in a hurry for them now?

b) Mr. Michael Everson: Document N1324 includes all the pre-composed characters that are required for Cyrillic - in Level 1. Otherwise, one is forced to use Level 3. These are high frequency use characters.

c) (Repeated from discussion under 8.3.1 above):Mr. Hugh Ross: The two papers -- N1323 and N1324 -- illustrate very well the point I was making earlier. The first one - the set of four characters - is required for natural writing of the Macedonian language. There is no question at all, in my view, that the four in N1323 should be included in the standard. I am not sure N1324 falls into the same category.

Disposition:The characters in document N1324 were not accepted.

8.4EthiopicInput Documents:N1270 Proposal for Inclusion of Ethiopian-Eritrean Syllabary; Hugh Ross, UK, expert contribution; 1995-10-12N1326 Conclusive Proposal for Encoding Ethiopic Syllabary; USA & Unicode - Joe Becker; 1995-12-09N1372 Update on N1270 and N1326 - Ethiopic; Hugh Ross, U.K.; 1996-04-23

Presentation:Dr. Asmus Freytag: Good progress has been made on Ethiopic via the e-mail between the experts. This could be brought to the conclusion in Quebec.

8.5FarsiInput Documents:N1247 Proposal to add two characters in ARABIC block; Iran - ISIRI; 1995-05-28N1275 Proposed Disposition of Iranian Proposal (N1247) on Arabic Script; Unicode Consortium, Joe Becker; 1995-11-06N1319 Comments on addition of two Farsi characters to Table 15 Row 6; Khaled Sherif, Egypt; 1996-01-24

Presentation:Mr. Mike Ksar: Document N1319 from Khaled Sherif, Egypt, has comments in agreement with the resolution taken in Tokyo. It was tabled for information only. There was no discussion..

8.6RunicInput Documents:N1222 Names and ordering of the Runic characters - comments on N1210; Michael Everson; 1995-05-20N1229 Response to Michael Everson comments (N1230) on Runic; Sweden National Body; 1995-06-16N1230 Feedback on Runic; Michael Everson; 1995-06-21N1239 Icelandic position on Runic; STRi, Olafsson; 1995-06-23N1262 Consensus Name & Ordering for the Futhark (Runic); Michael Everson, expert contribution; 1995-09-19


N1330 Final Draft - Runic Characters in N10646; ITS, ISO Runes Project; 1996-03-07N1382 Runic Script - Proposed correction to character name; Sweden; 1996-04-25

Presentation:Mr. Olle Järnefors: Referencing document N1330, the Runic proposal is created by ISORUNES project within the Swedish Central Board of National Antiquities. The script is from about 1500 years ago. There are about 6000 Runic inscriptions known. Starting about the first century AD, modeled after Latin alphabet it evolved in one direction -- expanded to between 31 to 34 symbols. In Scandinavia (?) the development went into the opposite direction, and a set of 16 characters was established and was in use till the middle ages. The Scandinavian Runic people were influenced by the Latin script (used by the church) and the Scandinavian Runic alphabet got expanded. There is also a medieval Runic alphabet consisting of about 25 alphabets. As late as the 19th century Runic alphabet was used in Sweden. In June last year, we proposed addition of 69 Runic characters to 10646. Valid criticisms were received - particularly from Mr. Michael Everson. As a result of discussion, some more Runic characters were added. Some code rearrangements were also made to align with the original FUTHARK order corresponding to the original 25 Runic characters. We were unable to agree on the other points of differences. The Swedish member body was asked to revise the proposal including alternate character names. This is from March 1996 and the results are in N1330 (circulated via mail by Sweden to the WG 2 distribution list about a month ago.). It supersedes the proposal from 1995. It has new code order and has added 12 new characters totaling 81. The proposed names are per the preference of ISORUNES project and some minor changes have been made to the names. Mr. Michael Everson's input has also been incorporated. The unification criterion has been described. On page 12, the character table at xx27 - Replace the word EOH with IWAR in the name. There are also corrections to Annex C - those interested can get the corrections from Mr. Olle Järnefors. Proposed category is C. The following are some observations on coding in 10646:

a) Historic scripts have a long period of development and if it is widespread, geographical variations happen. In the code some unification has to happen and this can cause its own problems. Section V in document N1330 describes this unification.

b) For some of these scripts there are only handwritten texts and no typography. There can be different forms for the same character. This requires selection of only one shape for including in the code tables.

c) There is need for including more information about the script itself and sometimes more on each character. This helps the users to make choices between related characters that are included in the standard.

Document N1382 - has also been tabled. this document contains some proposed text for inclusion in the standard and a layout of the character name tables. The layout has four additional columns which show the transliteration for the four major variants of the Runic script. Such transliteration information could also be added to the Annex P - as additional information on each character. Note the error at code position xx27 -- 'EOH' should be changed to IWAR. There is a document N1329 on character names from Mr. Michael Everson and the principles for naming used in document N1382 are based on document N1329. Annex K has not been modified in any form. The names for the characters are not based on ORIGINAL names for RUNES but on their transliteration names as proposed in Annex F in document N1330. Since the traditional names have changed over a period of time we can have two or three traditional names for some of the characters. Ease of use by the Rune using community is important - and for people studying Rune the transliterations are important. The traditional names have been kept in the parenthetical notations.

Discussion:a) Dr. Umamaheswaran: Parenthetical names in the name list in document N1382, has characters

that are outside Annex K guidelines for English version of the standard. These will not be valid in the main part of the code tables, and perhaps not even in the Annex P. National Bodies have to give some consideration as to where this script can be encoded - in the BMP or in an extended plane. All additional information on the script could be incorporated in other documents such as a Technical Report from another TC or SC of ISO.

b) Mr. þorvaðør Kári Ólafsson: The names of several characters cannot be spelled properly within a through z only.


c) Mr. Michael Everson: The need for transliteration of names has been met by the four column approach. With regard to the use of traditional names - the Runic script has some history. Some of the identities of Runes has been made part of the character identities themselves. From user community point of view, while Runic scholars may be one of the users, they are not necessarily the only users. Several other groups have picked up to learning the Runes also. The existing conventions - whether or not written down - is to continue using the transliteration names as is the case for example for Arabic. The arguments on transliteration versus traditional names etc. can go away only after some more guidelines are written down. Some of these items are identified in document N1329. We would like to accept the repertoire in principle. There is still some disagreements on names.

d) Mr. Hugh Ross: I have been working on the subject. I am impressed by this very fine piece of work capturing the opinions of various experts. I would be very sorry if this project gets delayed on arguments on names. Document N1382 does provide a happy solution to a number of problems raised by the experts. Whether the names are used in the main body (which is my preference) or in Annex P as the convener has suggested is up to WG 2 decide. The definitive names in upper case letters and traditional names and the transliterations are all captured and these should be included in the standard. Also the text that is provided should be included in the body of the standard. As new scripts are introduced we should see some explanatory texts such as the two paragraphs provided in document N1382. I recommend that this should be straight away processed as a pDAM. I think it is so mature that any fine tuning can be done during the pDAM step of the process. The proposal does reflect / respond to the comments expressed by Mr. Michael Everson. The table TP, TA, TV, TM etc. is from the view point of assisting users in selecting the correct set of characters.

e) Mr. Keld Simonsen: There are some WG 2 contributions on guidelines on names that we have postponed to Quebec. We would like to get some of the Runic experts comment on that. We would not support a pDAM at this stage. All the background information should be captured and should be put on the ISO WG2 web site etc. but not in the standard. Practically speaking - we can handle Runic on the WEB -- using escape sequences. We can also assist TC 46 by providing Transliteration related names to them.

f) Dr. Asmus Freytag: We took a decision on the subject that this standard is not the place to keep linguistic nuances etc. on the scripts. We would support the acceptance of the repertoire. I would suggest that we do not accept the names at this stage till final agreement on the names is arrived at by all the experts. 10646 should not be considered as a general repository of research information. As to the suggestion of putting into Annex P, I would prefer to see some closer agreement between Ireland and ISORUNES project / UK. Otherwise we will end up at the ballot stage having arguments / difficulties. I do not see any need to rush this proposal through either. We can afford to wait for resolution to the names issue. I would endeavor to summarize 'what kind of information' that could be included in 10646 - information that needs to be documented are those that are related to identifying some special attributes of the script. Annex P is restricted to things that are supplementary information about the names. Any other information should be only by reference. Such information is very similar to what could be asked from other National Alphabets and should not be included in 10646. The Unicode publication can also be a place where implementation or additional linguistic information can be published (it does have a broader scope than 10646.).

g) Mr. Bruce Paterson: Annex L - sources of characters - has a list of references that include standards, books etc. If ISORUNES project is going to produce a reference book we could place a reference to such a book and provide all the detailed information into such references to avoid placing too many details in Annex P. As long as the names are in accordance with Annex K it should be acceptable to WG 2.

h) Mr. Olle Järnefors: ISORUNES project did look all the comments from Mr. Michael Everson, and the decision was to go ahead with their current proposal. If WG 2 wants to postpone the decision any more, then WG 2 itself is not certain about which naming guidelines should be applied. ISORUNES project will certainly write an article on the subject - similar to what is in document N1303. The project is not in a position to judge how much extra information should be included in the standard. Is it the understanding that no information on transliteration belongs in 10646. There should be a reference to another document or reference that can contain such information in Annex L. A reference to an article on the


subject cannot be done till the coding is included in the standard. Also a reference to the Article cannot be made in the standard.

i) Mr. Sven Thygesen: We had some discussion earlier as to how to capture the information during the processing. Such discussion should be certainly captured in WG 2 documents but not necessarily as text included in the standard.

j) Mr. Mike Ksar: The four columns as well as the parenthetical names could belong in Annex P. The naming guidelines in Annex K are valid enough for the names of Rune characters to be agreed upon between ISORUNES projects and Mr. Michael Everson. It does not matter which scheme of names is used as long as the Annex K is used. All the parenthetical names and transliterations should be placed in Annex P. I would like to agree with the opinions expressed on what should be included in the text as additional information. The basic principle of 10646 is to ENCODE the world's scripts and not to describe the scripts or how to process them etc. TC 46 has not requested SC 2 to provide such information to them. However, any information that may be useful to TC 46 any of the attending delegates could communicate to them. The WG 2 decision may be to publish Runic coding as part of the next edition than being another pDAM.

Disposition:WG 2 provisionally accepts the number and shapes of characters in the repertoire. The names are to be refined.

Action Items:a. Swedish NB should be provided feedback on resolving the names disagreements before WG 2

can accept the names.b. National bodies are to review and feedback particularly on how to deal with the additional

information about the names and where these characters should be coded - in the BMP or in an extended plane.

Relevant resolution:M30.5 (Runic script): UnanimousWith reference to documents N1330 and N1382, WG 2 provisionally accepts the proposed repertoire of 81 characters for Runic script in document N1330, acknowledging that further work is needed to finalize the names of the characters.

8.7Symbols:

8.7.1Byzantine Music SymbolsInput Documents:N1208 List of Greek (Byzantine) musical notation system for inclusion in 10646; ELOT, The Hellenic Standards Body;

1995-03-30N1375 Revised Proposal - Repertoire of Greek Byzantine Musical Notation System; ELOT; 1996-04-16

Presentation:Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis: Document N1375 contains updated contribution addressing several of the comments from the previous meetings. The repertoire and the names of characters are stable. The fonts are still being worked on to deliver as true type in the format required by WG 2. There were some questions related to usage of these signs. It is not an easy script to use. The signs are placed on three stripes. In each stripe, they could be a standalone sign or a combination. The whole symbols is the vertical union of the three stripes. Table 2 shows the list of characters and where they would appear in usage. A detailed knowledge of the use of the script will be required to use it properly. A national standard is being created in Greece - ELOT 1363. We would like not to repeat the REPERTOIRE and NAMES etc. unless there are specific comments. Would like to see these accepted in principle by WG 2.

Discussion:a) Mr. Michael Everson: Some character names have an apostrophe in their names and may

need amendment to Annex K.b) Mr. Bruce Paterson: As you see there are columns of 'X's on the right hand side. I think the

columns we are interested in are U, M or B stripe - telling where the character is to be imaged. On page 15, there are blocks of characters with Xs on U and L. It is now optionally


coded above or below. From the encoding alone we cannot tell them apart. We have diacritic marks - like above OR below - not EITHER. The proposal needs to address how this aspect is to be handled. On page 5, the text describes the stripes - the upper and lower stripes could be treated as combining marks. What are the rules for this character set, if any, on how the base characters (middle stripe?) combine with the upper or lower stripe characters. The document has to be enhanced to address some of these questions. At present in 10646, there is always a clear indication for the diacritical marks on where a diacritical mark appears. We do have for each character its usual imaging. You may decide when you are producing the code table, an alternative notation may be used to indicate the positions unambiguously. Administratively speaking, document N1375 contains pages 19--50 which are the same as what we already have. I hope we do not have to keep getting duplicates.

c) Mr. Michel Suignard: 10646 as it stands is very hard to implement without some information about the scripts. Additional implementation guidelines - such as that is to be found in the Unicode standard - is needed for implementations. At least in the supporting papers, it would be useful to have additional information or references to where such information can be found on how to implement a script.

d) Mr. Keld Simonsen: From administrative point of view, it would be useful to have most up to date documents - that can be easily referenced. On the administrative document, we should also maintain explanatory documents on the use of the script etc. They should be consolidated into one document for better usability. -- will take it off line.

e) Mr. Sven Thygesen: A letter from the association of experts on the script was proposed to be added to the proposal at the last meeting.

f) Ms. Borka Jerman-Blazic: There is a claim in the document "Every Orthodox Church ... worldwide ..." (section 1.6 - user community) -- would like to have an explanation.

g) Dr. Asmus Freytag: On the request to accept in principle, we need to better understand some of the features of the script before we can agree to the repertoire.

h) Mr. Mike Ksar: You mentioned that this proposal is going to be a national standard. Would like to know the status of that activity. Is there an implementation of this script on a computer? It would be useful to show the members of the committee on that experience. The proposal still needs to address some concerns.

i) Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis: The apostrophes should not have been included in the names - it got introduced by myself in transcribing from the original names. These can be removed to follow Annex K rules. Concerning the use of the signs in U or L stripe, a set of rules related to their usage can be provided - as explanatory material. To give an implementer a complete set of rules we can refer them to publications where such rules can be found. We are not going to include them in the national standard either. We have not included for example the Grammar of the Greek language in any standard either. Such publications on the rules can be made available. Concerning Mr. Bruce Paterson's remarks: the three stripes show the visual representations of the components of the final character. Of course, we have a basic sign, and marks in U and L, until we find the next basic sign. In that respect, it is straight forward. Is it implemented ? -- Yes it is widely implemented in Greece. I have seen IT applications - facilitate writing music using these signs. Some of the attachments in document N1375 are from IT applications. It is also used to show correspondences between European music notation and the Byzantine notations are on an IT. In the WG in Greece, the topic of how to present the U or L marks etc. is being discussed. If WG 2 has some guidelines on how we may be able to do it, let us know. Greece would like to respond to the user requirements on the National Standards Body and would like to get some guidelines from WG 2 how best to proceed.

j) Dr. Umamaheswaran: One way to speed up the progression of the subject matter would be to create an ad hoc group at the next meeting and try to address all the concerns before WG 2 considers the item.

Action Item:Greek national body is requested to take the feedback received at this meeting and provide the answers.

8.7.2Naming and coding of symbolsInput Document:ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N1353 Unconfirmed Minutes 1996-06-25

Meeting 30, Copenhagen, Denmark; 1996-04-22--26 of 56

N1340 Naming and coding of new symbols - proposed amendments; Bruce Paterson; 1996-03-26

Not discussed at the meeting. Postponed to the next meeting. National bodies to review and feedback.


8.7.3Keyboard symbolsInput Document:N1338 Availability of a True Type font foe keyboard symbols; Alain LaBonté; 1996-03-22

Presentation:Dr. Umamaheswaran : Document N1338 is in response to the action item (reference AI-29-11) on Mr. Alain LaBonté. The fonts for all the keyboard symbols have been provided. The fonts were supplied courtesy Mr. Michael Everson.

Discussion:a) Mr. Suignard: Would like to get a clarification on the copyright statement in document N1338.

The copyright notice applies to the electronic versions of the fonts. Once they are on paper there is another set of issues. The font copyrights will become an issue once we get to electronic publications, versions etc.

b) Mr. Michael Everson: On the web page the declaration is already made that the fonts may be used without license for WG 2 work. WG 2 is free to use the fonts for its work. ISO cannot resell it without further license. If you create your own shape looking at what is there it is fine. You are not allowed to reverse engineer, or use the coded font as is without a license.

c) Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis: Not sure what is copyrightable in the fonts world. I buy a standard and from the standard using my own font tool can I reproduce the shape of the character? Perhaps a clarification statement or document should be included for users of the standard.

d) Dr. Asmus Freytag: A clear statement as to what is copyrightable and in what context the fonts can be used is desired.

e) Mr. Shigenobou Kato: There have been other similar situations for use by ITTF of other patented items. May be the convener can get a clarification statement from the font supplier similar to what ITTF has done.

f) Mr. Mike Ksar: I want to ensure that WG 2 can use the fonts for ISO publications and in WG 2 work. AFII has given a license for using their fonts with ITTF, and allows the ISO and the NBs to make additional copies or parts or whole under the copyright license. One has to communicate with the copyright owner to indicate what is permitted to be used and what is not.

g) Mr. Hugh Ross: I have created several code tables for the work of the committee. The fonts are copyrighted without any doubt. I always have asked for clarification that the permission is obtained from the font manufacturers (for example, from Monotype and Linotype) for work of ISO. I took care to ensure that the tables are slightly altered (corrupted) so that any electronically scanned copies will produce a distorted character. Copying an ISO standard for Information Purposes or study does not cause any problems. Only if someone uses the ISO standards to generate fonts and make financial gain out of it, then the copyright laws are there to protect the owner of the font.

Disposition:Accept the fonts supplied for the keyboard symbols. Mr. Michael Everson is to provide a written permission letter from his company to the convener, allowing WG 2 (and ITTF?) to use the supplied fonts for its work.

Action Item:Mr. Michael Everson: In order to alleviate the copyright concerns related to the true type fonts for the keyboard symbols, to supply a letter to the WG 2 convener, permitting WG 2 to use the true type fonts his company supplies for use of WG 2 work.

8.7.4Electrotechnical symbolsInput Documents:N985 Electrotechnical Symbols for First Addendum; Hugh McG Ross UK.; 1994-03-28N1146 Extra Electrotechnical Symbols - proposal summary form for N985; Hugh McG Ross, U.K. individual contribution;

1995-02-01

Presentation:Dr. Asmus Freytag: In response to action item AI-29-13a regarding possible unification of the Electrotechnical symbols, I have found two of the symbols can be unified in document N985. Eight


of the proposed 10 should be accepted. GREEK EPSILON SYMBOL can be unified with x220A; the POSTPONED-OUTPUT SYMBOL can be unified with x2510. The Unicode consortium has no opinion on the coding of the remaining eight symbols. We need to assign proposed code positions to these eight symbols to include in our collection of symbols. The current standing document from the editor lists other documents which have been accepted. Would like to see a consolidation - a collection or a list of symbols. The reason for such a list is so that it will provide a cross checking.

Discussion:a) Mr. Hugh Ross: The original request for these came from a writer in Siemens representing IEC.

If these symbols are going to be added, they would like to know what code positions would be assigned to them. IEC will be very happy to know of the symbols list and the associated code positions.

b) Mr. Bruce Paterson: Document N1146 is the proposed summary form that goes with document N985.

c) Mr. Michael Everson: I am willing to create and help the document with the fonts I have. Mr. Everson is welcome to assist the editor.

Disposition:Accepted that two of the proposed symbols can be unified. Remaining eight are accepted for coding in UCS.

Action item:Editor to create a standing document of symbols with the proposed shapes, names and proposed code positions, a table with the shapes for the symbols that are possibly cut and pasted in it. Messrs. Everson and Freytag are to assist the editor.

Relevant resolution:M30.9 (Electrotechnical symbols): UnanimousWith reference to documents N985 and N1146 on Electrotechnical symbols, WG 2 accepts the shapes, names and proposed code positions for eight out of ten characters (after unifying the GREEK EPSILON SYMBOL with the character at x220A and POSTPONED-OUTPUT MARK with the character at x2510) for possible future encoding in ISO/IEC 10646. Further, WG2 instructs its editor to add these 8 characters to the cumulative list of symbols for future processing

8.8Kang Xi RadicalsInput Document:N1182 Proposed to add 210 Kang Xi Radicals, TCA; TCA; 1995-03-23

Not discussed at the meeting. Postponed to the next meeting. National bodies to review and feedback.

8.9BrailleInput Documents:N1339 Liaison Letter on Braille to ISO/TC173 Secretariat; Mike Ksar; 1996-03-28N1342 Braille letters - confirmation of request; Japanese national body - TKS; 1996-03-19N1363 Initial Comments on Encoding Braille; Unicode Consortium; 1996-04-01Note: N1363 replaces N1345.

Discussion:a) Mr. Mike Ksar: Document N1339 - liaison litter from Mr. Mike Ksar has been sent to TC 137,

along with SC 2/WG 2 documents. We are awaiting feedback from TC 137.b) Dr. Asmus Freytag: At the March Unicode Tech committee meeting - one of the members Mr.

Ed Hart was requested to do some research on the topic. Issues were discussed at the meeting and came to the conclusion that there may be a good reason to encode the 448 Braille images as semantic-free entities. Their meanings certainly depend on the language and cultural contexts. We have not come to a conclusion as to whether they should be included in 10646 or not. There are several items to be addressed and we are willing to participate with others. Document N1342 states that these are not presentation forms. We


would like to see a little more evidence on your conclusions -- this would help UTC in their discussion.

c) Mr. Takayuki Sato: Japan - had a discussion in its national committee. If these characters are presentation forms they should not be encoded in 10646. Document N1342 presents the conclusion of the Japanese NB discussion. Braille is a separate writing system

d) Mr. Zhang Zhoucai: Will there be a separate meeting on the topic of Braille. China is now looking at standardizing Braille in China. Would like to bring our experts to such a meeting.

e) Mr. Mike Ksar: It will be useful to have more feedback on Braille from experts in different national bodies. China is welcome to present their experts' input to WG 2.

Disposition:No Action on these documents at this time. WG2 will await feedback from TC 137.

Action Items:a) Japan to send more information to UTC.b) National bodies should send their feedback.

8.10PinyinInput DocumentN1282 Two Pinyin Letters with Tone Marks missing; China; 1995-11-07N1355 US Response on WG2 resolution on Pinyin characters; U.S.; 1996-04-17

Presentation:Mr. Michel Suignard: Of the missing characters reported by China one of them is already in 10646. The other one is not there. However, it should be treated as a request for a NEW character. The missing character appeared in the GBK standard in 1995 - well after 10646:1993 was published. It should not be treated as a DEFECT in the standard.

Discussion:a) Mr. Bruce Paterson: This item arose out of document N1282, which came in as a proposal to

add a new character. However, the WG 2 Tokyo meeting decided to treat this request as a Defect.

b) Mr. Mike Ksar: In Tokyo, the meeting thought it may be a defect.c) Mr. Michael Everson: If a new proposal goes forward both the forms of N and n with grave will

be needed.d) Dr. Umamaheswaran: Canada had identified the need for both the forms of the character N

with grave - because it is used also in Montagne language in Canada.

Disposition:The new proposal summary form to be used - request should be resubmitted for the single missing character. Canada can participate in this if they so choose. A related previous action on Canada was not completed by Canada.

Action Item:China: Resubmit the request for Pinyin, using the revised Proposal Summary Form.

8.11CherokeeInput Documents:N1172 Proposal for encoding the Cherokee script; Michael Everson, Ireland, expert contribution; 1995-03-14N1356 US Position on Cherokee script; U.S.; 1996-04-17N1362 Initial Comments on Encoding Cherokee; Unicode Consortium; N1886-04-01

Presentation:Dr. Asmus Freytag: UTC had discussed the proposal in document N1172. UTC recommends acceptance of 86 characters less the archaic character ARCHAIC HV. There is still a question on the preferred ordering of these characters. The recommendation is to accept 85 characters for future inclusion in the standard. There are no technical concerns on the proposal which has been with WG 2 for over a year.

Discussion:ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N1353 Unconfirmed Minutes 1996-06-25


a) Mr. Michael Everson: I have been in contact with Ms. Lisa Moore, the Unicode expert who is in contact with the Cherokee people in the US. I would accept the suggestion to include 85 characters. Apparently there are three separate groups in the Cherokee nation. We need to get agreement from them on what is the correct ordering of the code positions. Cherokee nation would like to see the code positions ordered in the same way as the string ordering. The proposal also identifies it as a Category B script. It is a minor living language. We may be able to accept this also.

b) Mr. Bruce Paterson: I would like to check the proposed names of characters (document N1172 is not available here at this meeting) before we accept the recommendation.

c) Mr. Keld Simonsen: Ordering should not be a primary consideration - SC 22 has a work item on this topic.

d) Dr. Asmus Freytag: It may be more productive to have a listings of -- repertoire accepted, coding done etc.. A summary of what questions have been addressed, what questions that have not been yet answered etc. could be identified.

e) Mr. Keld Simonsen: We should have an opportunity to review and approve any proposed improvement to the procedures document.

Disposition:WG2 accepts the 85 characters - the names and glyphs, as a Category B script. Additional information that is needed is what is the correct ordering for code position allocation.

Action Item:a) US: Provide additional information towards arriving at a consensus on the correct ordering of

the characters in the Cherokee script.b) See action item c, under section 8.3.1 on the Ad Hoc group on Principles and Procedures

document.

Relevant resolution:M30.7 (Cherokee script): UnanimousWith reference to documents N1172, N1356 and N1362 on Cherokee script, WG 2 provisionally accepts 85 of the 86 proposed characters (excluding the character ARCHAIC HV), their names and shapes as Category B script for possible future encoding in ISO/IEC 10646, acknowledging that further work is needed to finalize their code positions.

8.12MongolianInput Documents:N1226 Mongolian character set proposal; Mongolian National Institute for Standardization and Metrology (MNISM),

Mongolia, Ochirbatvn CHILKHAASUREN; 1995-06-12N1248 Proposal to add Mongolian by the Mongolian National Institute for Standardization and Metrology; MNISM -

Mongolia; 1995-08-28N1268 Strategy for Coding Mongolian Script in UCS; Hugh Ross, UK, expert contribution; 1995-10-11N1273 Feedback on Mongolian Script; Unicode Consortium, Joe Becker; 1995-11-06N1286 Ad hoc report on Mongolian Script in Tokyo; China, Mongolia, Unicode and U.K.; 1995-11-08N1368 Joint Proposal on Encoding Mongolian; China, Mongolia; 1996-04-10

Output Document:N1383 Initial Comments on Encoding Mongolian; Adhoc: China, U.K., Mongolia, Ireland, and Unicode Consortium; 1996-

04-25

Presentation:Mr. Oliver Corff: An ad hoc group on Mongolian consisting of Dr. Asmus Freytag, Mr. Hugh Ross, Mr. Mao Yong Gang, Mr. Michael Everson, Mr. Ochirbatvn Chilkhaasuren, Mr. Oliver Corff, and Ms. Myatavyn Erdenechimeg, discussed the Mongolian script. Mongolian has female and male vowels to go with consonants. We will need specific joiners and non-joiners to deal with these. We can have choices of two or more for characters - depending on the environment - requires linguistic knowledge by the user and cannot be dealt with by the rendering engine. These characters have to be dealt with. The sorting, indexing etc. have not been addressed. For some glyphs - we do not know which could be used as a canonical glyph and which cannot be. The Mongolian script is such that there is a need to enter a string in a canonical form to execute operations such as search etc. A follow-up meeting is planned for August - in inner Mongolia, China (the location was decided to be Beijing, China during the discussion of the relevant draft resolution) - to discuss some more


of these items and come to agreement on a submission to WG 2 meeting in January 1997 (Singapore). (A written report of the ad hoc was made available at the end of the WG 2 meeting - see document N1383.)

Discussion:a) Dr. Asmus Freytag: We came up with a rough cut of the various features of the script. We

have to ensure the features list is complete. Document N1368 has the complete repertoire. We need to work on how to deal with the features and see which are presentation forms, which are encoding etc. Once that is worked out, we have to get other interested parties also involved off-line before submitting to WG 2. It should be recognized that the ad hoc does not consist of only a few experts - in the case of Unicode Consortium, we would like to have the opportunity to be able to discuss the results of the ad hoc within UTC. On the role of applications such as sort, search and indexing - Mongolian has a number of features which are unique and hence needs special attention. In the case of Mongolian, there may be two competing solutions to satisfy the features of the script. Unicode consortium does take a look at these kinds of things in our discussions. Would like to be given sufficient advance notice on the August meeting so that UTC can address sending an expert to the meeting..

b) Mr. Mao Yong Gang: Chinese Mongolian experts have discussed several of the topics discussed by the ad hoc. After two meetings in China and Mongolia, we have produced the proposals. We have consulted other interested parties also. We will continue to progress these documents further along with other experts. We would like to encourage the NB representatives to report back to their countries. I would like also participation from representative of the Unicode consortium. I will inform you on the details of the meeting agenda, dates, location etc.

c) Mr. Michael Everson: I would like to emphasize that the target date -- WG 2 January 1997 meeting -- is not necessarily the finish date. The proposal will be finalized only when all the outstanding questions / features are addressed. The ad hoc reports will certainly be made available to the WG 2, and to other interested parties.

d) Mr. Keld Simonsen: The SC 22 WG 20 has work going on aspects such as sorting, searching etc. and would like to be kept informed on such properties, requirements etc. to that group. It is a request to the ad hoc group to keep them informed through Keld.

e) Mr. Mike Ksar: Mongolia and China are certainly aware that the ad hoc group has to get other interested parties involved - off line. The experts are encouraged to continue the work in an ad hoc manner and progress the proposal answering all the questions identified within the ad hoc. As we consider this repertoire - before we process the encoding - considerations should be given to impact of the coding on applications such as sorting, programming languages, etc. and if there are any encoding related features that may impact applications these should be highlighted. I would like to know when the ad hoc meetings are being held, so that we can keep other NBs informed of the meetings to give them the opportunity to attend these meetings if they have experts who can participate in the discussion. The ad hoc group please take note of the UTC meetings in June and in September.

Action Items:a) China and Mongolia: To ensure the meeting notice for the proposed August meeting is issued

sufficiently in advance to enable NBs and liaison organizations to participate. Also to take note of the June and September Unicode Technical Committee meetings.

b) National bodies and liaison organizations: To take note of the proposed August meeting on Mongolian to be called by China and Mongolia.

Relevant resolution:M30.15 (Mongolian script): UnanimousWG 2 accepts documents N1368 and N1383 on Mongolian script, including the next scheduled meeting of the ad hoc group early August 1996, in Beijing, China, and invites national bodies and liaison organizations to participate.


8.13YiddishInput Document:N1364 Proposal Summary - Hebrew Yod with Hiriq; Unicode Consortium; 1996-03-19

Presentation:Dr. Asmus Freytag: HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ is the proposed character in document N1364. It has been discussed since September 1995 in the Unicode consortium. We have received much evidence to support its inclusion as a compatibility character to be included in the standard. This character not only completes the repertoire for Yiddish, but it is also supported by computer vendors. It could also be encoded using implementation Level 3.

Discussion:a) Mr. Bruce Paterson: Is this a presentation form and if accepted would it be included in the

Hebrew presentation block? Row 05 contains all unaccented characters. Row FB contains other marked characters etc. It would be preferable in row FB.

b) Mr. Michael Everson: I have had correspondences with Mr. Mark David on the subject. I would certainly support the proposed inclusion of this character. It would look better if it is in row 05. Category A is proposed. Is this acceptable? Israel has not shown interest on the subject of Yiddish -- they are only interested in Hebrew. The amount of evidence presented here is almost the same as that is given for Macedonian. I would like to take a similar position on Macedonian as we did for other characters such as Yiddish -- rather than wait for future.

c) Dr. Asmus Freytag: From what I understand, this character can be indeed decomposed, and the Unicode consortium does not have any particular preferred location for the character. The code tables attached show which currently standardized characters are used for writing Yiddish. Either one of the rows -- 05 or FB -- could be used. I propose that it can go at xFB1D. The accent in xFB1E is also used with Yiddish. Yiddish is one of the commonly used languages in the world. Israel may not be the right interested party for Yiddish. Accepting this character in the Hebrew bucket, as Category A character, would give enough opportunity for Israel to comment.

d) Mr. Sven Thygesen: The proposal summary form -- has answered the question as Category A according to the criteria definitions and it is difficult to argue about it.

e) Mr. Mike Ksar: Support the acceptance of the new character -- in the Hebrew bucket.

Disposition:The glyph, the character name and proposed encoding at xFB1D were accepted - as a category A submission. It is included in the Hebrew bucket for future encoding.

Relevant resolution:M30.10 (Yiddish character): UnanimousWith reference to document N1364 on Yiddish character, WG 2 accepts the shape, name and the proposed code position of xFB1D for possible future encoding in ISO/IEC 10646, and instructs its editor to add it to the cumulative list of characters for future processing

8.14Object replacement characterInput Document:N1365 Proposal Summary - Object Replacement Character; Unicode Cons./X3L2, Murrary Sargent; 1996-03-18

Presentation:Dr. Asmus Freytag: At the Unicode Technical Committee, a number of member companies have come to identify and code a marker to indicate the spot in a text string where some other object - such as a video clip - is inserted. It is proposed to be included in the UCS - called an OBJECT REPLACEMENT CHARACTER in document N1365, with xFFFC as the recommended position in the BMP.

Discussion:a) Mr. Michael Everson: Document N1365 says there is a proposed Glyph - and in case it is to be

rendered - the glyph is to be used. Can you explain.


b) Dr. Asmus Freytag: Normally, this is to be used in a rich text. The application takes some action with the object - such as playing a musical note -- instead of showing the glyph. Only where there is a need to visualize it, the glyph is shown. The description of the glyph is given though a shape is not shown in document N1365.

c) Mr. Bruce Paterson: Assuming WG 2 decides to accept this -- question 1 is related to conformance. A symbol is required to render the code point visible. The glyph is NOT normative - only the name is. The glyph that is implemented can be anything as long as it is documented. -- question 2 - is related to the name. "Object Replacement Character" - every code position in the standard is a character. Can we use something like Object Replacement Indicator.

d) Dr. Asmus Freytag: There are others like xFFFD - REPLACEMENT CHARACTER with 'Character' in their names.

e) Mr. Michael Everson: There are about 78 characters with name 'CHARACTER' in their names.f) Mr. Johan van Wingen: The nature of the proposed character seems to be a Control Character.

It should perhaps be included in ISO/IEC 6429.g) Dr. Asmus Freytag: This committee should consider what implementers have stumbled upon in

their experience with Rich Text.h) Mr. Mike Ksar: This character is NOT a control character in the sense of taking action etc. It is

an indicator or marker to indicate some other object exists. Can we accept this character and postpone the decision on encoding -- keeping in mind the proposed encoding?

i) Dr. Asmus Freytag: We have accepted for example -- some symbols to which we have given provisional codes.

j) Mr. Michael Everson: When we are satisfied enough with any characters, then can we not assign a provisional code? The question of when a provisional code should be assigned should also be addressed in the proposed enhancement to procedure document.

Disposition:Accept the proposed character for inclusion in UCS -- its name and provisional code position. Dr. Asmus Freytag to work with the editor in providing the glyph.

Action Items:a) Mr. Sven Thygesen: The question of when a provisional code should be assigned should be

addressed in the proposed enhancement to procedure document.b) Dr. Asmus Freytag: to provide the editor with the symbol for the OBJECT REPLACEMENT

CHARACTER.

Relevant resolution:M30.8 (Object Replacement Character): UnanimousWith reference to document N1365 on Object Replacement Character, WG 2 provisionally accepts the character, its name, and the code position of xFFFC, for possible future encoding in the standard, with the understanding that the shape is yet to be provided to the editor by the Unicode consortium and the US national body.

9IRG status and reportsInput Documents:N1348 Ideographic Components and Composition Scheme; IRG; 1996-02-05N1349 Resolutions of IRG# 6; IRG; 1996-02-08N1357 Revised Ideographic Structure Symbols; China; 1996-04-12N1358 Report on IRG Activities and Requirements; Zhang Zhoucai, IRG; 1996-04-17N1359 Ideographic Vertical Extensions 4.1; IRG; 1996-04-16N1369 IRG Related Requirements; China; 1996-04-21N1379 Summary of N1359 - Ideographic Vertical Extension; Zhang Zoucai; 1996-04-24Referenced during discussion:N1332 DAM 5 diagram attachment - BMP Revised Layout; Bruce Paterson, Project Editor; 1996-03-14

Presentation:Mr. Zhang Zhoucai: Presented the IRG report in document N1358. The IRG meeting 6 resolutions and other documents listed above were used as information documents. Three major topics: vertical extension, horizontal supplementation and ideographic combiantions were presented and discussed.


I. Vertical Extension:For Vertical Extension there are two kinds - one is adding new Glyphs to vacant positions for different countries. The other kind is identifying new VE characters to be coded. Draft 4.1 Released on 18 April 96 (WG 2 document N1359, IRG N322) is under review in IRG. All the characters proposed are in Category A. Classification and prioritization have been done. A definition of Level I set by IRG is given - the definitions are used in the work of IRG. The rationale for categorization of the VE as Levels I, II and III was explained. The Unified Core - 4532 plus others from individual countries to make a total of 6608 Level I characters. This data may change slightly but is quite stable after a year's work. There are now C, J, K, V and S -- seven columns - in the internal working documents of IRG. In addition we have about 301 (K&S) in Level II and about 3000 from China - Level III. In Helsinki IRG was asked to prioritize, and provide a list of ideographs for VE - we have done that.

Discussion:a) Mr. Bruce Paterson: When you have selected characters for Unification in the VE - is the

unification rules / procedure the same as what we have used in current CJK tables.b) Mr. Zhang Zhoucai: Yes - for all the characters that are being added to current part I.c) Mr. Shigenobou Kato: For the new proposals for VE, the procedures may need slight

modification.d) Mr. Zhang Zhoucai: We have received FB from IRG members on edition 3.0 etc. Version 4.1

has consolidated the comments received from all the IRG members. Would like to expedite the feedback from NBs. In addition to the number of characters, there is another column shown for Singapore for VE.

e) Mr. Bruce Peterson: We could simply state IRG enhance the proposal and create a pDAM text etc. The real important issue is the VE request for about 6600+ characters. This is about 24 rows from the BMP. VE publication of 5 or 6 columns are minor issues.

f) Mr. Takayuki Sato: Do we consider IRG's work is completed as far as VE is concerned? Would it change prior to Quebec meeting. If request from IRG to finalize by end of June, can we get it done by then. If we free up 6610 code positions or so, then IRG can move forward. Would like to see a resolution to the effect that the Criteria used to arrive at the Levels are accepted, and the character repertoire included in Level I is accepted in principle. Would like to see that the number of characters 6608 is accepted. Document N1332 (showing an overview of the BMP from the editor, after DAM-5) was available only at this meeting. The coding part should be looked at once again.

g) Mr. Mao Yong Gang: The current draft of VE is very near the final stage. If WG 2 had allocated only 5000 code positions for example, then IRG will have another re-prioritization problem. IRG has defined the Levels, consolidated the comments and stabilized the content. Would like to get the coding space decision made so that we can get on with progressing the VE work. Many of the IRG members have worked hard and chosen each character carefully with justification to go into Level I. We should accept the repertoire in principle, and would like to see the code allocation by the next meeting.

h) Mr. Mike Ksar: IRG members should also look at what one can do if there are not enough 24 rows. Can we use UTF-16? How many can we live with?

i) Dr. Asmus Freytag: Would like to propose to IRG - to take the repertoire of 6608 (mod 256) and fine tune it and see if it can be encoded in the UTF-16 space. If there are some which must go into the BMP, we could possibly consider starting with two rows of the CJK space for that subset. I would be careful with the word - 'ACCEPTED'. We acknowledge the proposal as mature, well thought out, and could be subject to minor modifications. It could be allocated in the future. If the request is made to encode in the UTF-16 encoding space, the opinions we have heard is that there will be wide support. If it is requested in the BMP, it may be difficult to accept using 6600+ code positions in the BMP. It is not yet clear that the Level I proposed collection is the best possible collection of ideographs that could have been chosen. We need to understand the current allocation space available, and understand the current scene. Once a large block of 6000+ characters are coded - they are gone. What goes into the BMP should be more carefully examined. Every character that goes into the BMP -- being limited in space -- is fixed there forever. The situation is a little better in the case of Extended planes. Let us take the positive approach -- requesting the IRG to fine tune the proposal that they have, and at the next meeting entertain the coding.


j) Dr. Umamaheswaran: Personal preference is to consider the UTF-16 coding space for the Vertical Extension. Document N1359 - VE document was not circulated to NB for feedback. Requested that the document be circulated for non-IRG participating NBs also.

k) Mr. Keld Simonsen: We can support in principle the acceptance of the repertoire. We could support the UTF-16 coding suggestions.

l) Professor Kyongsok Kim: I want to ensure that accepting the repertoire for Level I does not imply BMP. There was statement that in columns 1, 2 and 3 mostly existing collections are included. It is not the case with Korean. By stating that in the encoding in UTF-16 space means extended planes. Korea is willing to accept the repertoire in principle and defer the coding to a later point in time.

m) Mr. Mike Ksar: On the question of five columns versus six columns, IRG should examine the contents of columns for V and S and see if they can be joined or the glyphs from Singapore can be unified with others.

n) Dr. Asmus Freytag: The Singapore column has to be also addressed - and may reflect on how we may want to publish our future versions of the CJK code tables. Alternative methods could be investigated to address the printing problems.

o) Mr. Takayuki Sato: The five or six column issue is a printing technology issue. We would like to give IRG some guidelines to progress. There is another alternative - for HE, Chinese glyphs are filling all the holes. We should investigate whether Singapore's needs can be unified with one or the other of existing columns.

p) Professor Kyongsok Kim: Using more advanced True Type fonts, we may be able to retain six columns and still maintain the legibility and smaller sized fonts without increasing the page count.

q) Mr. Michael Everson: We have several scripts that are experiencing good progress right now -- such as Tibetan, Burmese, Khmer etc. WG 2 should be very reluctant to add such a large collection of characters as the Han VE to the BMP. If we are going to add column 6, then I would like to see a sample of what the final layout would like.

Disposition:Provisionally accept the repertoire proposed for the VE Level I in document N1379, pending final completion of the document by IRG. WG 2 will discuss the code allocation aspects at the next meeting, including considerations for Levels II and III repertoires.

Relevant resolution:M30.11 (Ideographic Vertical Extension): UnanimousWith reference to documents N1359 and N1379 on Ideographic Vertical Extension, WG 2 provisionally accepts the proposed 6608 characters and their shapes, with the understanding that the proposal will be completed by IRG, and invites the national bodies and its liaison organizations to review and comment on document N1359 and provide feedback to the IRG rapporteur before the next IRG meeting (IRG-7) 24--28 June 1996 in Hong Kong.

II. Horizontal Supplementation:Mr. Zhang Zhoucai: Vietnamese Chu Nom has been added as another column (V-column). TCA, Korea and China have added - no additions to the Japanese column. Singapore will be another column, after Internal Horizontal Supplementation. Would like to know if we can go for pDAM.

Discussion:a) Dr. Umamaheswaran: Do you need another column for Singapore? If the work done by IRG is

final we could request IRG to prepare a pDAM text for further consideration at the next meeting.

b) Mr. Zhang Zhoucai / Mr. Mike Ksar: No - Singapore did not want a new column. In the vertical extension a sixth column is shown. It may be a problem to include Singapore's information.

c) Mr. Shigenobou Kato: The requirement has changed - there may be a requirement for a sixth column for Singapore.

d) Mr. Zhang Zhoucai: Should IRG prepare low-resolution or high-resolution text?e) Mr. Shigenobou Kato/Mr. Bruce Paterson: Just prepare a pDAM text.f) Mr. Michael Everson: Would like to see the best possible quality for pDAM.g) Professor Kyongsok Kim: We can request IRG to prepare the pDAM text instead of the editor.

We need a resolution that we accept the work and progress further as a pDAM?ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N1353 Unconfirmed Minutes 1996-06-25


h) Mr. Mike Ksar: The editor has the responsibility to send the pDAM text for ballot to the SC 2 secretary. Just like the Korean pDAM where Korea helped, IRG can be requested to assist the editor.

i) Mr. Takayuki Sato: We do not have a clear decision on the extension. We say first whether we accept the HE or not? If it is accepted then instruct IRG how to proceed with it further. We need source code separation addressed. Except for the point related to 'source code separation', we can accept the rest of the proposal.

j) Dr. Umamaheswaran: If there are still some technical details to be ironed out then IRG has to be requested to do some more work.

k) Dr. Asmus Freytag: Are we going to process it as a pDAM or are we going to place the proposal in a 'bucket'? if there are significant technical issues not satisfactorily addressed we would have objections

l) Mr. Keld Simonsen: We would not prefer the Bucket route. We prefer the pDAM route.m) Mr. Mike Ksar: we should give due consideration for the publication aspects as well. We can

always create working documents.

Disposition:Instruction to IRG to continue the excellent work done on the Horizontal Supplementation work to address the concerns raised on source-code separation.

Relevant resolution:M30.12 (Horizontal Supplementation): UnanimousWith reference to IRG's request for instructions in document N1358 on Ideographic Horizontal Supplementation, WG 2 instructs IRG to continue its work on the subject addressing the concerns on whether the source-code separation rule was properly applied.

III. Ideographic Components and Composition:

Presentation:Mr. Zhang Zhoucai: The composition related input is for WG 2 discussion as a contribution. IRG Meeting 6 - resolutions (see document N1349) related to the topic were shown. Various reasons for composition of ideographs were explained -- primarily to be used for encoding less frequently used ideographs which are not directly encoded in their fully composed forms. A definition of ideographic components and radicals were shown. Several composition schemes have been categorized and defined (see document N1348) . A definition and examples of CIS -- combined ideographic sequence - were presented.

Document N1357 (From China) shows more examples of composition. IRG has not decided on how many OTI sub categories (see document N1357) are needed. EMB is not agreed on within IRG. Others from 2 through C are accepted by IRG. Further discussion is needed to refine the proposals from China.

Discussion:a) Professor Kyongsok Kim: The first RESEMBLE function (document N1357) -- how can it

distinguish multiple similar resemblances?b) Mr. Takayuki Sato: I have heard technology explanation for the composition techniques. I have

not heard the reasons for why we need composition techniques in the first place.c) Mr. Zhang Zhoucai: Document N1357 is only a proposal and needs further investigation

Document N1348 - first paragraph lists the rationale.d) Mr. Takayuki Sato: If the major reason is 4 or 5, the similar character is not important. If the

reason is to code new characters, then the RES related question is important. Are the reasons for composition prioritized? Which is the most important?

e) Mr. Zhang Zhoucai: Item 1 is the priority reason by default -- to code new characters.f) Mr. Shigenobou Kato: Item 1 is the reason -- others are benefits of composition method. China

is requested to differentiate the RES function from the other composition methods -- IRG has not accepted RES.


g) Mr. Michael Everson: If some of the reasons in this list are less important than others, it should not matter. As far as RES is concerned there are multiples. The symbol shown for RES looks too much like other mathematical symbols encoded already.

h) Dr. Umamaheswaran ??: In document N1358, what is the difference between Structure Symbols and Control Functions in the IRG resolutions?

i) Mr. Zhang Zhoucai: TCA, China and others in IRG requested the symbols for 2 -- C and were considered as Ideographs. But they are not ideographs - they are Control Functions.

j) Mr. Michel Suignard: Can use other terms such as FORMAT CHARACTERs etc. to avoid confusion

k) Dr. Asmus Freytag: Avoid using Control Functions for Characters in 10646. Calling them Structure Characters or Structure Function Characters should avoid confusion. On the Chinese contribution on composition -- One could unify 6--C OTIs into a single one because the Ideographic character seems to indicate the sub variants. The RES and EMB certainly requires more work. Are these proposed set of functions adequate for future?

l) Mr. Mike Ksar: Structure Function Symbols - or something like that can be used to avoid using Control Functions. If Composition Method can be used to code some of the new characters proposed under VE can we remove them from VE as new characters to be coded.?

m) Mr. Mao Yong Gang: Composition method is proposed not just by China - but also by TCA, Japan and Korea. IRG has discussed the rationale for composition. Composition method was intended to be used primarily for about 80000 or so characters that cannot be included in the BMP.

Action Item:China and IRG ad hoc on composition are invited to revise their proposals (in documents N1348 and N1357) based on the feedback received at this meeting.

IV. Other IRG Matters:a) Future meetings: IRG 7, 24-28 June 96, Hong Kong and IRG 8, 13-17 January 97

Singapore -- are the next two planned IRG meetings.b) Next Rapporteur -- August is the end of Mr. Zhang Zhoucai's term as IRG rapporteur. A

successor is yet to be identified.c) FTP Site - Hong Kong Chinese University is willing to be the provider for the FTP site

for the IRG work.

Discussion:Mr. Mike Ksar: Re - Singapore meeting. Response from someone in Singapore indicates they are willing to host the January 1997 meeting. Re: FTP site - only FTP is planned initially. Ideographic data is more complicated now. The current DKUUG FTP site seems to be having problems with non-Text files. The DKUUG site has problems with large files. Would like see a link to the web sites between HK and Denmark WG2 web site - if and when HK sets up a web facility also for IRG work.

Relevant resolution:M30.13 (IRG Meetings): UnanimousWG 2 approves the meetings IRG - 7 scheduled for 24--28 June 1996 in Hong Kong, and IRG - 8 scheduled for 13--17 January 1997 in Singapore.

10Defect reports statusNot discussed at the meeting. Postponed to the next meeting. There are no new defect reports.


11Liaison reports

11.1ISO/TC173 - BrailleInput Document:N1339 Liaison Letter on Braille to ISO/TC173 Secretariat; Mike Ksar; 1996-03-28

Document N1339 - liaison litter from WG 2 has been sent to TC 137, along with SC 2/WG 2 documents. We are awaiting feedback from TC 137.

11.2Unicode ConsortiumInput Document:N1377 Liaison Report - Unicode Consortium; Unicode Consortium; 1996-04-23

Presentation:Dr. Asmus Freytag: Much of the work of the Unicode Consortium and WG 2 are very closely linked. Much of our concerns on the work of WG 2 have been input via contributions to WG 2. The convener of WG 2 and Dr. Asmus Freytag met together and discussed ways to improve the working relationship between the two groups. The convener ensured that SC2 level documents are sent to Unicode consortium also, since they are not on the SC 2 distribution list. Unicode consortium would also like to get national body and expert contributions sent to WG 2, also be sent to them to enable them to study them and take positions on them. Some information on the Unicode/ISO 10646 Globalization conference held on April 18-19, 1996, in Hong Kong, is also included in the liaison report. The next conference is planned in San Jose during September 4-6, 1996. There are also two Unicode Technical committee meetings planned -- one in June and one in September after the Unicode conference. The proceedings of the Unicode Conference from Hong Kong can be ordered from Unicode Consortium -- [email protected] or Fax + 1 408 777 3724. Please refer to the written liaison report in document N1377 for details.

Discussion:a) Mr. Bruce Paterson: The liaison report did not mention anything about the Unicode 2.0

publication.b) Dr. Asmus Freytag: The camera ready copy has been sent to the publisher, and the final

publication is expected by end of August. In general Unicode's intent was to keep in synch with 10646 and its amendments. We picked up WG 2 approved material till pDAM-7 to include in Version 2.0. One of the difficulties of using a pDAM stage of documents in the Unicode publication would be to have to do some re-alignment work later on, rather than holding up the publications indefinitely. It is also important that WG 2 progress the pDAM-5 work as quickly as possible.

11.3AFIIInput Document:N1347 Liaison statement from AFII; Al Griffee; 1996-03-11

Presentation:Mr. Mike Ksar: See document N1347 for details. Of interest is: a CD ROM containing text and glyph shape information that is available from AFII. AFII is also willing to produce the next edition of 10646 for ISO.

Discussion:a) Mr. Johan van Wingen: The shapes in the AFII database seem to be different from the current

8859 tables.b) Professor Kyongsok Kim: Is there an e-mail contact for AFII. The fonts used for the first edition

of 10646 are available on the AFII CD-ROM. By providing the fonts to AFII, and by providing these to the member companies or others is AFII violating any copyright laws? Korean font suppliers had sent the information to AFII only with the intent of printing 10646. If any violation of agreements with AFII have been violated by providing the CD-ROM there may be problems.


c) Mr. Michel Suignard: The AFII database is not really FONTS. They are only bit maps and cannot be used in a production mode for example in a word processing application etc. The information can be used only in a very limited context. As a buyer of any one of the many operating systems on the PC-s today several fonts are already available without any licensing problems with font vendors.

d) Mr. Shigenobou Kato: Japan provided the fonts only for the purposes of publishing 10646 only. The agreement with AFII was only for the publication of 10646.

e) Mr. Takayuki Sato: Would like to know what exactly is contained in the AFII CD ROM.f) Mr. Zhang Zhoucai: IRG has the resources and is willing to produce the final camera ready

copy of the code tables. IRG has no relation with AFII at this time. China has the same concerns as has been expressed by Japan and Korea regarding the font suppliers.

g) Mr. Bruce Paterson: The liaison statement should have more details regarding what the CD-ROM contains, what are the agreements in place regarding its wide spread use etc. so that questions such as what is being raised need not be entertained by WG 2.

h) Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis: Where can we get some information on how many copies of 10646 have been sold in different countries etc.? -- ITTF.

i) Mr. Mike Ksar: AFII has also used the information for publishing the ISO Glyph Registry. AFII has taken care not to violate the agreements with the font providers. The national bodies who do have concerns regarding what AFII's CD-ROM may contain should contact AFII directly. AFII is in the process of acquiring True Type fonts. I will investigate if AFII can produce the code tables required for ISO 8859 Revisions

Action Item:a) Mr. Mike Ksar: To investigate if AFII resources can be used for producing 8859 code tables.b) National bodies: Those who have questions about how fonts supplied to AFII are being

protected from copyright point of view, should contact AFII directly.

11.4ITUInput Document:N1344 Liaison document from ITU/SG 8 - Status Update; George-Basil Tzortzinis; 1996-04-01

Presentation:Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis (on behalf of Mr. George-Basil Tzortzinis): SG VIII has an action item to use ISO/IEC 10646 in Telematic services. They found themselves in a situation of different coding - one for Latin, one for Cyrillic, one for Far East scripts etc. Definition of 'T.51 String' for use with ASN.1 was approved. Refer to document N1344 for other details. Liaison needs with other organizations is identified.

Discussion:a) Mr. Mike Ksar: WG2 can assist if SG VIII needs any help or information on the current work on

ISO/IEC 10646.b) Mr. Keld Simonsen: Mr. Stefan Fuchs has been participating from ITU/TS 8. He has been

participating also in SC 22 I18N. Mr. Rafik ?? also has been participating.

11.5CEN/TC 304Input Document:N1380 Report from CEN TC304; Melagrakis/Simonsen; 1996-04-24

Presentation:Mr. Keld Simonsen - Unofficial verbal report: A standard ENV - called a minimum subset (1100 characters) and extended subset (3000+ characters) of 10646 is under consideration. The minimum set includes scripts from Latin, Greek and Cyrillic identified as used in Europe. Following the Vienna agreement - a process of joint or parallel balloting on 10646 within CEN is also operational. A number of new work items in the areas of Character Set Technology are in the process of being approved. Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis produced a written report in document N1380 before the end of the meeting.


Discussion:a) Dr. Umamaheswaran: Requested a copy of Vienna agreement document will be sent to WG 2

for information. This was made available to the meeting.b) Mr. Bruce Paterson: What are the results of ballot on the transposition of 10646 within CEN?

The ballot on transposing 10646 as a CEN standard, failed by one UNIT -- some countries have more units others have less. It did not make it because Denmark had commented that the ballot did not include Technical Corrigendum 1. UK had voted negative knowing such would happen -- and were concerned with the overlap of work. The document under transposition is considered to be frozen during the ballot process.

c) Mr. Mike Ksar: Why can't we use the ISO standards directly instead of making them CEN standard also? How come WG 2 was not informed of the CEN project on the sub set definition of 10646

d) Mr. Keld Simonsen: A report called PT-001 from CEN has been circulated as an SC 2 level document. It contains a long list of character set related to character set technology.

e) Mr. Johan van Wingen: Netherlands voted YES assuming that other CEN member bodies were voting YES. It is certainly duplication of the processing work.

f) Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis: There are two separate ballots -- one on the subsets of 10646, and the other one is on the transposition of the whole of 10646. There are two views: one is that several of them could be simply references to ISO standards, and all it takes is some official notification. The other view is that according the current EC directives -- for procurement reasons -- it must be a CEN standard.

g) Mr. Michel Suignard: Will you be including details of the projects in your liaison report.h) Mr. Michael Everson: CEN ENV on sub repertoire was approved at its Barcelona meeting. Will

be more than happy to propose the approved subsets to be added to Annex of 10646.i) Mr. Johan van Wingen: The first ENV ballot failed. Per CEN rules one must be at a meeting

when another ballot is needed on a ballot that failed the first time. Some of the major countries are opposed to it.

j) Mr. Takayuki Sato: CEN should formally communicate the work on coded character set related projects through JTC 1, to SC 2 and to WG 2. This has not happened in the case of the European subrepertoire.

k) Mr. þorvaðør Kári Ólafsson: We should certainly cooperate between WG2 and CEN/TC 304. Will prepare a document that will be forwarded to WG 2. The CEN project definitions are really TRANSPOSITION of ISO standards.

l) Mr. Keld Simonsen: The sub repertoire work of CEN /TC 304 was started much before the Vienna agreement started. Common projects -- CEN has a number of projects that processes each of the pDAMs as ENV equivalents.

m) Mr. Mike Ksar: The voting process may be in parallel. Would like to know what are the parallel projects that are active? The SC 2 secretariat has to deal with the processes.

n) Mr. Johan van Wingen: Will fully support Mr. Mike Ksar's request and position.o) Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis: I will send a liaison report from this group to CEN/TC 304 and will

request them to put a cooperation plan in place and try to get the work done in one place. Are you aware of the current status of Vienna agreement from JTC 1 - so that we can fully apply the agreement to our work? Per my information, JTC 1 has not agreed fully to all aspects of the Vienna agreement.

Action Item:Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis -- To provide a more detailed liaison report on CEN /TC 304 activities or projects which are supposed to be joint with WG 2 per the Vienna agreement -- towards avoiding duplication of work in CEN/TC 304 and to communicate the same message to CEN/TC 304.

11.6SC 22Presentation:Mr. Johan van Wingen: Verbal report - the WG 2 M29 resolution relevant to Unique Identifier request from SC 22 was forwarded via e-mail by Mr. Arnold Winkler soon after the Tokyo meeting. Mr. Johan van Wingen had contacted the chair of SC 22 regarding the original resolution which requested WG 2 for unique identifiers in the first place.(See also discussion under section 7.3 - pDAM on Unique Identifiers.)


Action Item:Mr. Johan van Wingen is requested to communicate the resolution from this meeting regarding the Unique Identifiers from this meeting to SC22 - pDAM-9.

11.7SC 22 WG 3 - APLPresentation:Dr. Umamaheswaran: Verbal report - I had communicated to Mr. Leigh Clayton the outcome from Tokyo meeting - the suggestion for unification of the APL Quad symbol with some box characters. The response e-mail message was forwarded to the convener (this was read out to the meeting by Mr. Mike Ksar). The APL group reiterated their request for a separate code position for APL QUAD. WG 2's suggestion of unification with other similar looking rectangle symbols was not acceptable.

Action Item:Dr. Umamaheswaran: To contact Mr. Leigh Clayton and request that a Proposal Summary Form be prepared and submitted to WG 2.

12Other business

12.1Use of electronic tools in SC2/WG2's workInput Document:N1381 Use of Electronic Tools in SC2/WG2; Simonsen/Ksar; 1996-04-25

Demonstration:(The following is based on information provided by Mr. Keld Simonsen.)Mr. Keld Simonsen demonstrated the SC2/WG2 web pages. Much information is available in these pages, including general description of WG2 work to the public, and meeting information and WG2 papers The service is planned to be further enhanced and utilized in future WG2 work. Submitters of documents are encouraged to submit these electronically to the convener. See document N1381 for further information.

12.2A soft-copy viewer for Unicode V2.0 documentDemonstration:(The following is based on information provided by Mr. Michel Suignard.)A demonstration of a font viewing tool created by Asmus Inc. was performed. It associates a full ISO/IEC 10646 name list plus additional name-related information with a single font or a set of multiple fonts and allows to cross reference visually names, their visual representations and their properties. It is currently targeted to produce a name list description compatible with the new Unicode Consortium publication V2.0, but could be modified in order to produce an output for the next edition of ISO/IEC 10646. It is a dramatic change from the earlier process as it uses outline fonts which are usable by a very large segment of the computer community.

13Closing

13.1Approval of resolutionsOutput Document:N1354 Resolutions of SC2/WG2 Copenhagen Meeting # 30; WG2; 1996-04-26

Seventeen draft resolutions were prepared by the drafting committee. 15 national bodies were represented during the adoption of these resolutions. The final text of the adopted resolutions are in document N1354. They are also embedded under the appropriate sections in these mintues.

Most of the corrections on the draft resolutions were of editorial nature, better phrasing and consistent wordings across several similar looking resolutions. Except for Abstenstion by Denmark on M30.2 (Unique identifers), and by Greece on M30.6 (Additional Cyrillic characters), all the resolutions were adopted unanimously.


Action Item:During the discussion on resolution M30.11 on ideographic vertical extension, the term Level I, was changed to Stage I. IRG is to take note and change the use of the term Level to Stage I, II, III etc. in their documentation on VE.

13.2Future MeetingsMeeting 31 is scheduled for 12-17 August 1996, in Quebec City, Canada. There was some discussion about why the meeting along with SC 2/WG 3 and SC 2 meetings (scheduled for 20--22 August, the following week) could not have been condensed into one week. Some delegates expressed a desire for not having to be at meetings for more than a week in a row. The meetings were fixed for these dates based on the past experience of having to rush through the agenda and not being able to complete them within 3 days for WG2, one for WG 3 and one for SC 2 plenary, and it is too late to change the Quebec City meeting dates.Meeting 32 - will be in Singapore, 20--24 January 1997.Meeting 33 - will be in Cyprus. 23--27 June 97. Mr. Melagrakis will assist with the cooperation with Cyprus.Meeting 34 - will be in USA (if Singapore meeting does not happen) -- December 97 or January 98.ELOT willing to Host a future meeting.

Relevant Resolution:M30.16 (Future Meetings): UnanimousWG2 confirms the following future meeting schedule:Meeting no. 31: 12 to 16 August 1996, in Quebec City, Canada (the week prior to WG 3 and SC 2 meetings)Meeting no. 32: 20 to 24 January 1997, in Singapore (backup USA - Seattle or San Francisco area)Meeting no. 33: 23 to 27 June 1997, in Cyprus (backup Greece or Ireland)

Appreciation

The following resolution on appreciation was approved by acclamation:

M30.17 (Appreciation): by AcclamationWG2 thanks the Danish Standards Association, the Danish Ministry of Research and Information Technology, Kommunedata, the Danish UNIX Systems User Group (DKUUG) and their staff for hosting the meeting, providing secretarial and administrative support and especially for its outstanding hospitality.

Thanks were also expressed to the host for arranging the trip to the National Museum, where there were several exhibits with Runic inscriptions on display.

13.3AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 12:30h on Friday, the 27th of April 1996.


14Action ItemsAll individuals, national bodies and liaison organizations are requested to take prompt necessary steps to complete the action items identified against them in the following tables to avoid undue delays in WG 2's progression of work.

NOTE: If you have any comments or corrections to be made to the above minutes, please inform the convener and the meeting secretary, well ahead of the next WG 2 meeting. This will assist in speedier review and acceptance of these minutes at the next meeting.

14.1Outstanding items from WG 2 meeting 25 Antalya, TurkeyItem Assigned to / action (Reference document N1034 - resolutions,

and document N1033 - minutes of Antalya meeting WG 2-25, and corrections to these minutes in Section 3 of document N1117)

Status

AI-25-5 Japanese member bodya is requested to forward a set of bit maps and /or the outline of the

corrected shapes reported in document N1006 and document N1014 along with a blown-up (96x96) hard copy to the editor.Note: Japan needed more information from the project editor regarding fonts See discussion under section 8.1.2 in WG 2-M26 minutes document N1117.First choice is True Type, or any Outline Font that can be converted to True Type; Last choice is 96x96 bit maps. The set is to be sent to Mr. Mike Ksar.M26, 27, 28, N29: In progressM30: Japan had sent the appropriate fonts to the convener. However, they could not be utilized -- reason unknown. JIS has already published material and it can be used by WG2.

M30: Japan will further supply a camera ready copy of appropriate pages.

AI-25-6 Korean member body is requested to forward the set of bit maps, and or the outline of the corrected shapes of the characters in defects in document N975, along with a blown-up (96x96 bits) hard copy is needed by the editor.M26, M27: M28, M29: In progress; Korea will attempt to speed up the availability of fonts.M30: Of the 6 characters that had the defective shapes, four have been over-ridden by pDAM-5 on Korean.

M30: Professor Kim will investigate the fonts for two remaining shapes in defect.

AI-25-10 Chinese member bodya is requested to study this possibility of composition to reduce the

number of characters of the Yi script in document N965 that needs coding in the BMP.M26, 27, 28, 29: Under study.

M30: Still under study; Target M31.


14.2Outstanding items from WG 2 meeting 26, San Francisco, CA, USAItem Assigned to / action (Reference document N1118 - resolutions,

and document N1117 - minutes of San Francisco meeting WG 2-26, and corrections to these minutes noted in Section 3 of document N1203)

Status

AI-26-8 Ms. Joan Aliprand - Liaison to TC 46to take parts related to TC 46 in document N1071 for formal submission as liaison document by TC 46 along with the completed Proposal Summary Form.M27, M28: In progress.M29: Mr. Arnold Winkler tried to reach Ms. Aliprand - no success.

Outstanding;M30: Mr. Mike Ksar will pursue the item with Ms. Aliprand - target M31.

AI-26-13 Mr. Michael Everson and CanadaWith reference to document N1104 on Canadian Aboriginal syllabics, to work with Canadian member body (and CASEC) and get agreement on a common position.M27--M30: CASEC (Mr. Dirk Vermeulen), the Canadian national committee, Mr. Everson and Mr. Hugh Ross are in correspondence with each other exploring the different alternatives and addressing some outstanding differences in views. Mr. Vermeulen has also presented on the topic to Unicode technical committee and to Unicode conference.


AI-26-14 Mr. Hugh McGregor Ross and CanadaWith reference to document N1073 on Canadian Aboriginal syllabics, to work with Canadian member body (and CASEC) and get agreement on a common position. See AI-26-13 above. M30: Further discussion ongoing; Target M31.

In progress;

14.3Outstanding items from WG 2 meeting 27, Geneva, SwitzerlandItem Assigned to / action (Reference Meeting 27 Resolutions

document N1204, Unconfirmed Meeting 27 Minutes in Document N1203, and corrections noted in document N1253)

Status

AI-27-12 Mr. Johan van Wingen, Netherlandsis invited to examine the standard for the need for any statements regarding conventions used for naming characters such as 'digits', 'letters', etc. and propose clarification texts -- see minutes item 6.1.2.2.

In progress;M29-M30: No new progress

14.4Outstanding items from WG 2 meeting 28, Helsinki, FinlandNONE

14.5Outstanding Action items from WG 2 meeting 29, Tokyo, JapanItem Assigned to / action (Reference Meeting 29 Resolutions

document N1304 and Unconfirmed Meeting 29 minutes in document N1303 -and corrections to these minutes in section 3 of document N1353).

Status

AI-29-9 Koreab To take note of the following comment from Mr. Zhang Zhoucai:

"The latest Korean standard document (from Professor Kim) being published still has one glyph in the Korean column of unified ideograph as a serious defect. The Korean NB has not fixed it nor reported to WG 2".

Outstanding.M30: Professor Kim to check.

AI-29-10 Chinaa To take comments in document N1246 and comments from this

meeting (M29) as feedback to the appropriate experts on Uyghur, In progress.



Status

Kazakh and Kirgihiz.

14.6New Action items from WG 2 meeting 30, Copenhagen, DenmarkItem Assigned to / action (Reference Meeting 30 Resolutions document N1354 and

Unconfirmed Meeting 30 minutes in document N1353 -this document you are reading)AI-30-1 Meeting Secretary - Dr. V.S. UMAmaheswaran

a To finalize the document N1354 containing the adopted meeting resolutions and send a plain text and word processor source to the convener as soon as possible, for electronic distribution by the convener to the WG 2 membership and to SC 2.

b To finalize the document N1353 containing the unconfirmed meeting minutes and send to the convener for distribution to WG 2.

c To contact Mr. Leigh Clayton (SC22 WG3 - APL) and request that a Proposal Summary Form for APL QUAD character be prepared and submitted to WG 2

AI-30-2 Convener, Mr. Mike Ksara With reference to query from X Consortium on identification of versions of the standard, to

send a suitable response based on the discussion at the meeting. b To investigate if AFII's font resources can be used for producing 8859 code tables for ISO

publication.AI-30-3 Project Editor, Mr. Bruce Peterson

a With reference to resolution M30.1 on naming guidelines, to add editorial corrections in document N1287 to the list of editorial corrigenda in document N1288.

b With reference to resolution M30.2 on Unique Identifiers, to prepare the final pDAM text and forward it to the SC 2 secretariat for further processing as pDAM-9 in SC2.

c With reference to resolution M30.3 to prepare the revised text of pDAM-7 -- with the choice of shape which looks like the character LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S at x017F with a dot above added to it, for the character at x1E9B LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S WITH DOT ABOVE -- and forward it along with an updated disposition of ballot comments (document N1315) to SC2 secretariat for further processing in as DAM-7 JTC1.

d With reference to resolution M30.4 to prepare the revised text for pDAM-8 (based on document N1333), update disposition of comments (based on N1343) and forward them to SC2 secretariat for further processing as DAM-8 in JTC1.

d With reference to resolution M30.10 on Yiddish character, to add the shape, name and proposed code position of xFB1D from document N1364 to the cumulative list of characters for future processing.

e With reference to resolution M30.8 on OBJECT REPLACEMENT CHARACTER to add the shape (to be provided by Dr. Asmus Freytag), name and proposed code position of xFFFC from document N1365 to the cumulative list of characters for future processing.

f With reference to resolution M30.11 on Tibetan, to create a disposition of comments document (based on Table of Replies in N1295 and N1314, and agreements reached at meeting 30), and a revised text of pDAM-6 reflecting the disposition of comments and forward them to SC2 secretariat for further processing as DAM-6 in JTC1. A camera ready copy of the code table is to be provided by China.

g With reference to resolution M30.6 on four additional Cyrillic characters (from documents N418 and N1323), to add the names and shapes to a standing document containing a cumulative list of characters for future processing. Their provisional encoding proposed in N1323 will be confirmed based on national body feedback.

h With reference to resolution M30.7 on Cherokee script, to add the 85 accepted characters - their shapes and names to cumulative list of characters for future processing. The encoding is to be finalized based on further input from the US national body on acceptable ordering of these 85 characters.

I To create a standing document containing all the symbols accepted for encoding, with the proposed shapes (possibly cut and pasted), names and proposed code positions. The document should include the eight electrotechnical symbols accepted in resolution M30.9.


Item Assigned to / action (Reference Meeting 30 Resolutions document N1354 and Unconfirmed Meeting 30 minutes in document N1353 -this document you are reading)Messrs. Everson and Freytag are to assist the editor.

j To update document 1223R - the textual part of 10646 -- reflecting Amendments 1 to 4, COR-1, and all the accepted technical and editorial amendments as a WG 2 standing document.

k To prepare Annex P entries as editorial corrigenda and add to the cumulative list of editorial corrections based on the proposal from Israel (document N1346 - Hebrew characters) - after clarification is received from Mr. Stefan Fuchs on what is meant for the last two entries x05C0 and x05C3.

AI-30-4 Israel (Mr. Stefan Fuchs)To clarify (communicate to the editor and convener) what is meant for the last two entries x05C0 and x05C3 in document N1346 - proposal for entries in Annex P for some Hebrew characters..

AI-30-5 IRGa To work towards completion of the Vertical Extension proposal - a set of 6608 characters

and their shapes for discussion on encoding at meeting 31.b With reference to resolution M30.12 on Horizontal Extension (Supplementation) to continue

its work on the subject addressing the concerns on whether the source-code separation rule was properly applied.

c To change the use of the term 'Level' to 'Stage' I, II, III etc. in their documentation on Vertical Extension, to avoid confusion with the Levels of conformance in 10646.

d To revise their proposals on Ideographic Composition (in documents N1348 and N1357) based on the feedback received at this meeting.

AI-30-6 Liaison Representative to SC 22 (Mr. Johan van Wingen)a With reference to resolution M30.2 on Unique Identifiers, to send the proposed pDAM text in

document N1289R along with a liaison letter, immediately to SC 22 requesting their feedback - by middle of May, to be able circulate the feedback prior to August 96 WG 2 meeting

AI-30-6 Greecea To prepare a revised proposal addressing the concerns expressed during the discussion at

meeting 30, for consideration at meeting 31.AI-30-7 Japan

a To forward any information on 'Braille is a script on its own' to the Unicode Consortium as information.

AI-30-8 Chinaa With reference to resolution M30.14, to provide a camera ready copy of the code tables for

the revised text of pDAM-6 on Tibetan, reflecting the disposition of comments to be prepared by the editor, and forward it the editor.

b To resubmit the request for missing Pinyin characters as New Character proposalsc To ensure the meeting notice for the ad hoc meeting on Mongolian in August 1996, Beijing,

China, is sent out well in advance to national bodies and liaison organizations.AI-30-9 Ireland (Mr. Michael Everson)

a In order to alleviate the copyright concerns related to the true type fonts for the keyboard symbols, to supply a letter to the WG 2 convener, permitting WG 2 to use the true type fonts his company supplies for use of WG 2 work.

b To prepare Proposal Summary Forms and proposals for Sinhala, Burmese and Khmer scripts, based on contribution N1321 and N1376 from Mr. Hugh Ross.

c To assist the editor in preparation of the standing document on symbols.AI-30-10 US (Mr. Michel Suignard)

a To provide information on the preferred order for the 85 Cherokee characters accepted in resolution M30.7 to enable finalizing their code positions.

AI-30-11 Unicode Consortium (Dr. Asmus Freytag)a To assist the editor in preparation of the standing document on symbols.b To provide the shape for the OBJECT REPLACEMENT CHARACTER accepted in resolution

M30.8 to the editor.


Item Assigned to / action (Reference Meeting 30 Resolutions document N1354 and Unconfirmed Meeting 30 minutes in document N1353 -this document you are reading)

AI-20-12 Ad Hoc Group on Principles and Procedures (Mr. Sven Thygesen - lead)a To work with Mr. Hugh Ross and document the guidelines / criteria that were used in the

creation of the first edition of the standard, for deciding when a pre-composed character was considered for inclusion directly versus when it would be left as Level 3 composition encoding.

b To provide some guidelines on when provisional code positions could / should be assigned for new character proposals.

c To enhance document N1352 on Principles and Procedures to indicate how a proposal progresses through different stages in WG 2 from the initial proposal stage to the final publication. A description of how the relevant information is captured (possibly in document N1302) as each proposal progresses through the different stages should be included.

AI-30-13 CEN/TC 304 Liaison (Mr. Evangelos Melagrakis)a To provide a more detailed liaison report on CEN /TC 304 activities or projects which are

supposed to be joint with WG 2 per the Vienna agreement -- towards avoiding duplication of work in CEN/TC 304 and to communicate the same message to CEN/TC 304.

AI-30-14 Denmark (Mr. Keld Simonsen)a To update proposed revision to Annex E (document N1360) to include all the character

names from 10646 and all its amendments and corrigenda - as a WG 2 standing document..AI-30-15 Romania (Ms. Alexandrina Statescu}

a to take into consideration the feedback received at this meeting and inform WG 2 on whether they need (from document N1361) -- s, S, t and T with comma below --characters separately or can stay with the current unification of Cedilla with Comma Below, including considerations for impact on Latin-2 based implementation for Romanian. Romania is also encouraged to consult with Turkish experts.

AI-30-16 Latvia, Ireland and Finlanda to provide additional supporting documents to address the various concerns expressed on

proposal for Livonian characters in document N1322 at this meeting to permit WG 2 to better evaluate the proposal.

AI-30-17 All member bodies and liaison organizationsa To feedback on the proposed encoding in document N1323 - for Macedonian Cyrillic

characters (reference resolution M30.6).b Those NBs who have questions about how fonts supplied to AFII are being protected from

copyright point of view, should contact AFII directly.c With reference to resolution M30.5 on Runic script to provide feedback to the Swedish

national body towards resolving the names in document N1382, based on comments expressed in meeting 30. Also, to provide feedback on how to deal with the additional information about the names and where these characters should be coded - in the BMP or in an extended plane.

d to feedback to Mr. Michael Everson on document N1329 on several questions raised on character naming principles.

e To submit contributions on ' collection identifiers' - how these should be treated in the standard with each pDAM, repertoire enhancements etc.

f To feedback on Braille encoding proposalg to feedback on contributions N1320 and N1373 on Level 2 support for Indic & other scripts

from Mr. Hugh Ross.h to review and comment on document N 359 and provide feedback to the IRG rapporteur

before the next IRG meeting (IRG-7) 24--28 June 1996 in Hong Kong.i To take note of the following future IRG / WG 2 meeting schedules:

1. Meeting no. 31: 12 to 16 August 1996, in Quebec City, Canada (the week prior to WG 3 and SC 2 meetings)

2. Meeting no. 32: 20 to 24 January 1997, in Singapore (backup USA - Seattle or San Francisco area)

3. Meeting no. 33: 23 to 27 June 1997, in Cyprus (backup Greece or Ireland)4. IRG Meeting 7: 24--28 June 1996, Hong Kong5. IRG Meeting 8: 13--17 January 1997, Singapore


Item Assigned to / action (Reference Meeting 30 Resolutions document N1354 and Unconfirmed Meeting 30 minutes in document N1353 -this document you are reading)6. Ad hoc group on Mongolian: meeting planned for August 1996 in Beijing, China

*********************** END OF DOCUMENT ***********************
