> I'm very disappointed that you use our discussions just only for forcing
> your idea ahead, by using our presence in these discussions .

I'm sorry that I have projected an ethos of forcing my ideas ahead. Please do not take my failure to use flattering platitudes to mean that I am being disrespectful. My feeling is that it is not helpful to hold out false hopes (for example, that COENG and explicit subscripts could co-exist in ISO10646 or that the present Khmer Unicode could be annulled).

If I am wrong on my understanding of the 'facts' please show me where the falsehood has crept in. My impression was that all in this discussion WANTED to know the rationale behind the competing ideas. Hopefully the presence of people with strong opposing ideas in the same list will ensure all facets of the arguments and counter-arguments have been/will be brought out.

> You have no intention to find out the solution to solve this problem.

Is the 'solution' to nullify the existing Khmer Unicode encoding and substitute that proposed in N2380R? That is what WG2 has already rejected. Is the 'solution' to deprecate U+17D2 (COENG) and add around 80 characters as a result? That is tantamount to the same thing...and would cause significant problems for generations to come. Nevertheless, we have continued to spend many hours discussing the details of that.

If I have been premature in asking for us to move beyond the discussion of COENG, what new arguments should be added to that discussion?

> You did not response yet to our document N2406 and you proposed only
> your idea for the sorting. We will waiting for the response from Michael.

Certainly we want to move on to more of the issues in that. There are dozens of issues brought up in N2406. We are trying to discuss the issues contained in that...hopefully from the technically most important to those less fundamental.

Incidentally, I agreed with Michael to narrow my discussion in sorting to discussions relating to code-point disagreements. To me the second most important technical differentiation between the two positions (after COENG) is the handling of vowels. The context in which they are best elaborated is in sorting. We do not need to make a decision on sorting issues at this time, but the evidence from the Chuon Nath dictionary forcefully justifies the choice of encoded vowels (and encoded signs).

Would you prefer that we move on to an individual issue different than the question of vowel code-points in Khmer Unicode as revealed in sorting? What issue would you (or others on this list) prefer instead? Should we schedule a series of issues to be addressed and set a time limit on each one?

>> Let us move on (as was the UNANIMOUS decision of WG2) to work
>> together to in effect fine tune the existing Khmer Unicode.

> You said that it is an UNANIMOUS decision but there are nobody who can
> convince with your proposal that time because there are no their presence.
> You use the presence of some people at the final stage and they can not
> do anything.
> It's not fair.

Are you saying this of the Singapore meeting or are you referring back to the London meeting of 1998? I was referring to RESOLUTION M41.14 in Singapore which also reminded the Cambodian delegation of "resolution M41.11 above regarding the policy on acceptable changes". The concept of removing COENG seems to me to be an unacceptable change and the reasons for that have been elaborated. Would you rely on standards that fundamentally change after they have been through a process of approval?

You obviously feel very strongly on this point. Please restate it so that we can understand how to respond.

Our discussions here are not a definitive resolution of ISO or Unicode policy. We are all free to contribute, to present evidence, to refute, to raise questions, et cetera. Hopefully it will be conducted in a civil manner.




I wish to take issue with Maurice's final point, and one that he has stated
a few times over recent weeks:
> "Nevertheless, the argument at this point has moved beyond the relative
> merits of an explicit subscript versus COENG model. A COENG model
> has already been encoded in Khmer Unicode. It is not judicious or practical at
> this point to change that foundation.
> Let us move on (as was the UNANIMOUS decision of WG2) to work
> together to in effect fine tune the existing Khmer Unicode."

The Singapore discussions and decisions do not support this interpretation of the current status. It is my clear understanding that the discussion on COENG should continue as, while WG2 reaffirmed that existing characters are almost certainly not to be removed, there is a still the possibility for a decision that the use of COENG can be deprecated and explicit codes for subscripts added.

Helen Jarvis

These are the key points:
RESOLUTION M41.11 (Policy regarding acceptable changes to 10646):
Against: DPR of Korea;
Abstention: Japan;
For: Canada, China, DPR of Korea, Singapore, Sweden and the USA.
WG 2 requests SC2 adopt the following policy regarding acceptable changes to ISO/IEC 10646 and convey the same to JTC1 for information and to SC2 membership to take note:
a. Once a character is assigned a code position in the standard it cannot be reassigned in the interest of ensuring interoperability of standardized characters.
b. The arrangement of the characters in the standard is fixed; sorting and collation of the characters is outside the scope of the standard.
c. The character names chosen by WG 2 for the English version of the standard are unique, fixed and may be arbitrary; once a character name is assigned, it cannot be changed even if additional information is provided later. These name strings are used , for example to establish correspondences with characters in other standards.
d. Any inconsistencies in names could be adjusted in other language versions either when the standard is translated or in supplementary external documentation.

WG2 further instructs its editor to prepare suitable text to reflect the above policy and incorporate it into Amendment 2 of Part 1.

RESOLUTION M41.14 (Khmer script):
With reference to document N2380R from Cambodia, WG 2 accepts document N2394 from ad hoc on Khmer. WG 2 invites Cambodia to:
a. Take note of resolution M41.11 above regarding the policy on acceptable changes to ISO/IEC 10646.
b. Communicate with other Khmer experts (for example, authors of document N2385) to get clarification on any question on the current Khmer encoding model, repertoire and assignments in the standard.
c. Propose any additional characters based on the above clarification, following the guidelines in document N2352R (Principles and Procedures)
d. Propose any explanatory texts towards clarifying the use of encoded Khmer characters.

Dr Helen Jarvis
Associate Professor, School of Information Systems, Technology & Management
University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia

currently in Phnom Penh
Phone: 012812658 (international 85512-812658)
Fax: Office of the Council of Ministers (85523) 880-629
Mail: c/- PO Box 1109, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: 012812658@mobitel.com.kh OR h.jarvis@unsw.edu.au (please do not use both)