Comments on: Unicode 5, The Book, is here http://rishida.net/blog/?p=70 News of changes to my main site, and W3C related posts. Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:27:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: cover http://rishida.net/blog/?p=70&cpage=1#comment-5464 cover Sun, 07 Jan 2007 00:22:03 +0000 http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/?p=70#comment-5464 I'd just like to thank you for taking the time to create this internet website. It has been extremely helpful I’d just like to thank you for taking the time to create this internet website. It has been extremely helpful

]]> By: Shoshannah Forbes http://rishida.net/blog/?p=70&cpage=1#comment-4269 Shoshannah Forbes Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:02:28 +0000 http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/?p=70#comment-4269 I just got my (printed) copy. At nearly 6lb, it is a pretty hefty book :-) I browsed a little, and it looks good. But I always thought that writing systems are both beautiful and fascinating. I'm looking forward to the weekend when I'll be able to do some serious reading. Your review just makes me want to get there faster... I just got my (printed) copy. At nearly 6lb, it is a pretty hefty book :-)
I browsed a little, and it looks good. But I always thought that writing systems are both beautiful and fascinating.

I’m looking forward to the weekend when I’ll be able to do some serious reading. Your review just makes me want to get there faster…

]]> By: site admin http://rishida.net/blog/?p=70&cpage=1#comment-3869 site admin Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:43:45 +0000 http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/?p=70#comment-3869 I received a nice note from Julie Allen, Senior Editor and Project Manager, Unicode, Inc. which contained the following information: "Thanks for your very nice review of Unicode 5.0. We appreciate your support. As the editor, I especially appreciated your kind words about the clarity and readability of the text. We work hard on that. And I'm glad you noted the many script descriptions and other parts we rewrote." "Of course, you'll see the book for yourself soon, but I wanted to comment on the integration of the annexes and your comment about Tibetan. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how nice the annexes look. It is true that they are not fully integrated into the book, but we worked very hard to edit them and get them to the same level of quality as the rest of the book. Because they are still published both as HTML on the web and in the book, this process was relatively complicated. We also decided to add the annexes very late in the publication schedule. While it would have been ideal to index them as part of the main book, this would have been impossible to do without throwing off the publication schedule, which was extremely tight even before adding the annexes. Overall, I think the result turned out well. (BTW, Asmus was the one who handled the annexes, and he spent considerable time on them.)" "You're right that Tibetan hasn't changed from 4.0 and is probably not our strongest script description. Tibetan was an extremely difficult script to reach consensus on with the various groups who helped draft the description. If memory serves, it was one of the last pieces of text we completed for 4.0, so it probably got less scrutiny than some others that we completed earlier. If someone steps forward, maybe we can improve the text next time." I received a nice note from Julie Allen, Senior Editor and Project Manager, Unicode, Inc. which contained the following information:

“Thanks for your very nice review of Unicode 5.0. We appreciate your support. As the editor, I especially appreciated your kind words about the clarity and readability of the text. We work hard on that. And I’m glad you noted the many script descriptions and other parts we rewrote.”

“Of course, you’ll see the book for yourself soon, but I wanted to comment on the integration of the annexes and your comment about Tibetan. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised at how nice the annexes look. It is true that they are not fully integrated into the book, but we worked very hard to edit them and get them to the same level of quality as the rest of the book. Because they are still published both as HTML on the web and in the book, this process was relatively complicated. We also decided to add the annexes very late in the publication schedule. While it would have been ideal to index them as part of the main book, this would have been impossible to do without throwing off the publication schedule, which was extremely tight even before adding the annexes. Overall, I think the result turned out well. (BTW, Asmus was the one who handled the annexes, and he spent considerable time on them.)”

“You’re right that Tibetan hasn’t changed from 4.0 and is probably not our strongest script description. Tibetan was an extremely difficult script to reach consensus on with the various groups who helped draft the description. If memory serves, it was one of the last pieces of text we completed for 4.0, so it probably got less scrutiny than some others that we completed earlier. If someone steps forward, maybe we can improve the text next time.”

]]>