|TITLE:||Report of ISO/IEC 10036 Registration|
|SOURCE:||GLOCOM, RA of ISO/IEC 10036|
|DISTRIBUTION:||SC34, SC34/WG2 and Liaisons|
|REPLY TO:||Dr. James David Mason
(ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Chairman)
Y-12 National Security Complex
Bldg. 9113, M.S. 8208
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8208 U.S.A.
Telephone: +1 865 574-6973
Facsimile: +1 865 574-1896
Mr. G. Ken Holman
(ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat - Standards Council of Canada)
Crane Softwrights Ltd.
Kars, ON K0A-2E0 CANADA
Telephone: +1 613 489-0999
Facsimile: +1 613 489-0995
This document reports on the activities of the ISO/IEC 10036 Registration Authority in 2003/2004. The activities reported in this document include
To strengthen the management of the registration authority (RA), the steering committee (RA-SC) was reorganized in April 2004. The members of the RA-SC include the convenor of SC34/WG2, Dr Komachi. The RA-SC meets regularly to discuss issues concerning the management and operation of the RA. A mailing list (email@example.com) is provided for internal discussion by the members of the RA-SC.
The resident registry of the Japanese local governments needs to maintain non-standardized character variants (glyph) for historical compatibility. Character variants are represented as standardized characters coupled with reference to ISO/IEC 10036 Glyph identifiers. Amendment of ISO/IEC 10646 asking for character variants will not be proposed. Instead, up to 50,000 character variants will be added in ISO/IEC 10036 glyph registry.
A tutorial on the registration procedures set forth in ISO/IEC 10036 was held on 9 October, 2004 in Bangkok as part of the Seminar on Enhancement of International Standardization Activities in Asia Pacific Region (SEISA-AP/IT). The purpose of the tutorial is to introduce standardization officers of governments of Asia Pacific countries to the framework of ISO/IEC 10036. Tutorial participants represent Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Singapore, and Lao PDR. Participants were encouraged to utilize ISO/IEC 10036 for their character/glyph requirements which may not be addressed by ISO/IEC 10646.
ISO/IEC 10036 RA received comments from the representatives of Nepal, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.
Comment from Nepal: The Nepali Language in Information Technology Steering Committee is currently working on unification of Devanagari glyphs in the Nepali language, and expects to examine the existing glyphs in the registry and register additional glyphs when necessary.
Comment from Cambodia: The benefit of the glyph registration should be stated more explicitly. Once the benefit is understood, NiDA (standardization authority in Cambodia) will utilize the registration procedure.
Comment from Sri Lanka: Additional "character" for Sinhala are being proposed against ISO/IEC 10646 by non-experts, resulting in unwanted debate over the standardization of Sinhala characters. These proposals are actually "ligatures", and would better fit to registration by ISO/IEC 10036.
Comment from Thailand: If the implementation of ISO/IEC 10036 is application-dependent, glyphs may not be used universally.
After the tutorial was held, the Steering Committee met in Tokyo and discussed the comments, and agreed on the following disposition of comments.
Glyph data, such as the shape, description and reference to ISO/IEC 10646, were to be delivered to the Member Secretary of the Nepali Language in Information Technology Steering Committee for their reference.
The benefit of glyph registration, particularly for developing countries, will be discussed further in the ISO/IEC RA Steering Committee.
It is true that implementation of ISO/IEC 10036 is application-dependent, but this is due to the objective of ISO/IEC 10036.
The RA-SC discussed registration fee structure, and it concluded that RA may give concession in registration fee based on the economic development of the country in which the applicant resides. However, the RA-SC believes that registration fee, however small it is, should be charged to all applicants considering the nature of registration fee.
The examples quoted here illustrate that there are unserved requirements, which may better be addressed by the glyph registration by ISO/IEC 10036. Considering these emerging requirements and submitted comments, it is concluded that the application and utilization of ISO/IEC 10036 should be explored more in depth.