Print

Print


Yes, we definitely need a second vote for "yix".

However, the argument that there is "no formal request" is hardly any reason
not to process it. During the Yi discussion it became quite clear that there
are other Yi languages with a number of documents. Those are currently coded
as "something-else (other)". It was an obvious follow-up of the evidence
that was presented. (I partly share Michael's "dislike" of the "other"
languages; this issue is discussed in the document TC37/SC2/WG1 N101, which
I submitted to the WG few days ago. However, there are obvious needs in some
user groups for these identifiers, and those needs cannot be ignored.)

Michael's request for Sichuan Yi will be finalized very soon. Other requests
and needs may or may not be Michael's; the JAC will process them regardless
of what Michael thinks, wants, or says. It does not at all help the process
that Michael finds it necessary to express anger or "for heaven's sake" or
whatever. Please bear in mind that the JAC list is "almost" a formal ISO
meeting; I expect the tone of the submissions to the list to respect that.

The request in May was NOT for "Yi" (unmodified). The submitted request
needed suplemental information, which was collected and submitted by various
members of the JAC. This has not taken longer time than should be expected.
One week from now I expect that it is official that Sichuan Yi has the
identifiers "ii" and "iii".

Best regards,
Håvard

-------------------------
Håvard Hjulstad    mailto:[log in to unmask]
  Solfallsveien 31
  NO-1430  Ås, Norway
  tel: +47 64963684  &  +47 64944233
  mob: +47 90145563
  http://www.hjulstad.com/havard/
-------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Rebecca S. Guenther
Sent: 2. oktober 2002 19:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Jean-Arthur Creff -- and Yi


Actually, after I voted it occured to me that no formal proposal was ever
sent for Yi languages (other), so there is no evidence of sufficient
documentation. So it is against our principles to be voting on something
that was never submitted.

I would suggest that even if it's a formality, that we conduct a second
ballot. That is what is what our procedures call for if there is not a
unanimous vote.

Rebecca

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 15:56 +0200 2002-10-02, Håvard Hjulstad wrote:
>
> >As to the procedures of the JAC: The current ballot (Yi) cannot be
finalized
> >in one round.
>
> Oh, for heaven's sake.
>
> >I would like to suggest the following: All items except the
> >possible inclusion of "yix" = "Yi languages (other)" have received 100%
> >approval from the rest of the voting members.
>
> I DID NOT REQUEST THIS. I DO NOT APPROVE OF IT BEING ADDED TO THE BALLOT.
>
> I am pretty angry about this. Microsoft China wrote to me to ask for
> a code for Yi. This means Sichuan Yi, which uses the syllabary.
> That's the only code we are looing for.
>
> I do NOT believe that the "languages (other)" codes are useful, and I
> do not request one for the Yi languages.
>
> PLEASE will you approve iii for Sichuan Yi so Microsoft China, who
> asked for this in MAY 2002, and be done with it?
>
> PLEASE note that I do NOT request a two letter code for Yi.
> --
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com
> 48B Gleann na Carraige; Cill Fhionntain; Baile Átha Cliath 13; Éire
> Telephone +353 86 807 9169 * * Fax +353 1 832 2189 (by arrangement)
>