Subject: Advice on publishing open standards

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:50:11 -0500 (EST)

Hi IETF list,

For the past 5 years, I've been processing written sign language as data.
I've worked directly with the inventor of the script, which is over 30
years old.

We are ready to standardize.  The latest symbol was finalized last month
after more than a year of improvements and refining.

I believe I'll need to write 2 Internet Drafts followed by 2 RFCs.

The first is for a 16 bit coded character set called x-iswa-2008.  I have
the set documented in 2 formats: an HTML package with PNG images and a
straight ASCII package.  The ASCII package is over 2MB tarred and zipped.
http://www.signpuddle.net/mediawiki/index.php/ISWA_2008_final

The second is the character encoding model called Binary SignWriting with
ABNF notation.
http://www.signpuddle.net/bsw

Our font has been released under the Open Font License.  The documentation
is released under Creative Commons (by-sa).  There are several code
packages released under the GPL.  We want the standards to be open so that
the writing can flourish.

I believe sumbitting to the IETF will be the best route.  I was wondering
if anyone had some advice before I begin the formal preparation of the
Internet Drafts.

Regards,
-Steve
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:02:32 -0800

Hi -

> From: <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 10:50 AM
> Subject: Advice on publishing open standards
...
> after more than a year of improvements and refining.
...
> if anyone had some advice before I begin the formal preparation of the

Have you considered taking this to Unicode?

Randy

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:20:21 -0500

--On Friday, 28 November, 2008 11:02 -0800 Randy Presuhn
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> For the past 5 years, I've been processing written sign
>> language as data. I've worked directly with the inventor of
>> the script, which is over 30 years old.
>> 
>> We are ready to standardize.  The latest symbol was finalized
>> last month after more than a year of improvements and
>> refining.
> ...
>> I believe sumbitting to the IETF will be the best route.  I
>> was wondering if anyone had some advice before I begin the
>> formal preparation of the Internet Drafts.
> 

Or, if that is inappropriate for some reason, as a new work item
proposal to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2?

You would face two problems with the IETF.  One is that we
rarely take on work for which we cannot add value and do
effective reviews.  The other is that we generally don't do work
that is not Internet-specific, and your audience would seem much
broader that the Internet alone.   Terms like "rarely" and
"generally" imply that you could perhaps convince people that
this should be an exception, but I believe it would be an uphill
battle.

   john

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:28:23 -0500 (EST)

Hi -

There are several issues with Unicode.

First, Unicode is written in stone.  Our latest symbol set may be our
last, but maybe not.  In 2 or 3 years, we may update our symbol set.  This
would cause problems because Unicode is not allowed to change.

Second, Unicode is used with sequential scripts: one character after
another. Our script is spatial: the words are characters written in space
based on coordinates.  The words are sequential, but not the characters. 
Even if we were part of the Unicode standard, I do not believe existing
applications could properly edit or display the words.

Unicode has reserved 512 code points for our script, but Unicode is best
left to the future.

Right now, we believe the best way forward is to create open standards
with our own character encoding model.  This CEM will server as an
excellent reference when/if we become part of the Unicode standard.

Regards,
-Steve

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:05:02 +1300

Steve,

Can you clarify whether this work applies to one particular sign
language or to many? I am completely "illiterate" in these languages,
but I understand that there are many of them.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:37:07 -0700

<slevin at signpuddle dot net> wrote:

> First, Unicode is written in stone.

A gross overgeneralization.  Unicode characters are not allowed to be 
moved or renamed once they have been encoded.  New characters can always 
be added, though.

> Our latest symbol set may be our last, but maybe not.  In 2 or 3 
> years, we may update our symbol set.  This would cause problems 
> because Unicode is not allowed to change.

How good an idea is it to attempt to standardize a character encoding in 
which it is expected that characters might still move around?

> Unicode has reserved 512 code points for our script, but Unicode is 
> best left to the future.

There is a block of 1024 code points *tentatively roadmapped* to "Sutton 
SignWriting."  That is very, very different from saying that "Unicode 
has reserved N code points for our script."

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:58:20 -0500 (EST)

The work applies to all sign languages.  SignWriting has been used or
investigated in over 40 countries.  We have many active dictionary
projects with several thousand signs in each.

-Steve

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:11:03 -0500 (EST)

> which it is expected that characters might still move around?

We will be using this symbol set for a long time, maybe forever.  It's a
great idea to explicitly state that these are open standards for general
use.

If we release a general coded character set, we can always release another
in the future, such as the x-iswa-2010.  This would not be possible with
Unicode because it's written in stone (once it's written).

Regards,
-Steve

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:20:46 -0500 (EST)

> this should be an exception, but I believe it would be an uphill

I would like the coded character set to be an official character set of
the internet because I plan on writing an extension for Firefox and
Thunderbird, where charset="x-iswa-2008".

> ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2

I'll look again, but I was most impressed with the IETF.  Maybe I should
self publish as an open standard technical report.

Regards,
-Steve

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:38:32 -0500

One note about the charset name. The registered name would be
charset="iswa-2008", *not* charset="x-iswa-2008". The x- prefix should
only be used for experimenting until the name is registered. Per RFC
2978, section 3.1, "x-" prefix can only be used *until* the registration
is complete. You should also be looking at that section for other advice.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:48:25 -0000

> language as data.
> I've worked directly with the inventor of the script, which 
> is over 30 years old.
> 
> last month after more than a year of improvements and refining.
> 

First, you have to give up control of the standard. This means that, for
instance, the Makaton people and BLISS Symbolics people may very well
make changes to the standard to accomodate their signing symbols.

You really should have a look at the Tao of IETF
<http://www.ietf.org/tao.html> before you publish an Internet draft. I'm
not sure that this is the kind of thing that needs to be standardised
via the IETF since it is not primarily about network protocols.
Signwriting is more to do with encoding of graphical information and
seems more closely related to w3.org's work with SVG and SVG fonts, not
to mention the Unicode consortium.

Also, I would suggest that you abandon the ASCII stuff since it seems to
be just a roundabout way of defining standard bitmapped representations.

--Michael Dillon

--Michael Dillon

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:11:22 -0500

> applications could properly edit or display the words.

I did a quick examination of your specification, and I couldn't find
any documentation for how your control chracters and spatial
coordinate system works in practice.  Given that this seems to be
critical for interoperability and for anyone else to be able to write
software that utilizes your character set, it appears to me your
specification may be incomplete.

Something that may be useful would to be try to get someone else to
create an independent implementation that can at least display your
script, going solely from your specifications.  That would be a very
good sign that the specification completely specifies your new writing
system.

After all, the whole point of standardizing something is to allow
multiple people to create implementations that can interoperate.  So
if you only have one implementation utilizing your scripting system,
and you haven't yet built up an implementation community interested in
utilizing your writing system in multiple applications that need to be
able to interoperate with each other, standardization efforts may be a
little premature.

The other comment I will make is that using a writing system which
isn't compatible with existing writing systems which are purely
left-to-right (or right-to-left) will significantly hamper the
development of application programs that can support your SignWriting.
It means that instead of being able to use an unmodified version of,
say, Open Office or some other word processing software, you will need
to implement either your own word processing software, or at the very
least, need to modify existing application programs one at a time to
support your new writing system.  

I know you've spent a lot of time putting together a system which very
accurately models the physical movements of signing.  This is an
approach similar to using a purely comprehensive description of every
possible audible sound/phomeme that could be used in a spoken
language, such that one writing system could be used for recording
sounds used by all spoken languages --- the International Phonetic
Alphabet (IPA) is one such system that attempts this, for example.
However, this might not necessarily be the most efficient way of
encoding sign language, and if it requires the spatial coordinates
into characters, this might not be the most appropriate encoding
system for everyday use by deaf people, just as most people do not use
the IPA for encoding spoken languages for everyday common use when
they are writing letters, books, sending e-mail, etc.

						- Ted

---

From: "Tim Bray" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:36:06 -0800

> There are several issues with Unicode.

Many of the world's standards organizations, including the IETF to
some degree, have more or less outsourced issues of character
definition and specification to Unicode. Were your writing system to
be accepted into Unicode, that would greatly increase the chances that
providers of rendering and display software would look seriously at
shipping implementations.

Of course, you would lose control of the standard (you would retain
the ability to provide input, but you'd lose control). This is a good
thing.

> would cause problems because Unicode is not allowed to change.

Unicode lets you add but neither delete nor change.  This is a good
thing; such a constraint would be highly beneficial for your users.

> applications could properly edit or display the words.

There are lots of scripts in Unicode which act in surprisingly
non-sequential ways given certain character combinations.  The benefit
to finding a way around this problem are huge.

> excellent reference when/if we become part of the Unicode standard.

I agree with others here that the IETF is ill-suited to host this
work.  If you're hell-bent on going through a standards process, you
might want to look at OASIS, which is has a relatively relaxed and
open process, and is less tightly focused than the IETF.  -Tim
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:18:36 -0500

--On Friday, November 28, 2008 4:20 PM -0500 
[email-masked] wrote:

>> effective reviews.  The other is that we generally don't do
>> work that is not Internet-specific, and your audience would
>> seem much broader that the Internet alone.   Terms like
>> "rarely" and "generally" imply that you could perhaps
>> convince people that this should be an exception, but I
>> believe it would be an uphill battle.
>>
>>    john
>
> I would like the coded character set to be an official
> character set of the internet because I plan on writing an
> extension for Firefox and Thunderbird, where
> charset="x-iswa-2008".

Modulo Tony Hanson's note and some others, getting a 
registration for "iswa-2008" doesn't require an IETF Standard, 
merely a published and stable specification and general 
recognition of its global utility and non-proprietary nature.

Whatever an "official character set of the Internet" means, I 
think there will be some difficulty inventing any more of those 
unless you can somehow demonstrate that Unicode is insufficient. 
I'd assume that would require approaching either the Unicode 
Consortium or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 and having them turn you down 
or demonstrating that there is something about your system that 
is fundamentally incompatible with Unicode's design principles 
and still useful/important.

> I'll look again, but I was most impressed with the IETF.
> Maybe I should self publish as an open standard technical
> report.

Unless you are willing to abandon change control --whether to 
the IETF or to some other body that insists on taking it over as 
a condition of standardization -- that might be your best route.

   john