The thing is, unless I have missed something or forgotten, nobody has ever said why my ideas are out of scope, they just tell me that they are out of scope.

As a researcher I need to proceed on the basis of evidence and reasoning, not on just because someone, or even many people, say my ideas are out of scope.

Alas, a document intended for the Unicode Technical Committee cannot go into the Current Document Register if the gatekeeper decides that the topic is out of scope, even if no reason for that decision is stated.

From my viewpoint, I have devised a collection of symbols that can be regarded as the characters of Language Y which language has a language code of x-y and which language is such that each symbol in the language is a grammatically stand alone whole sentence within a stated context.

So Language Y is an auxiliary language for assisting communication through the language barrier. Yet an auxiliary language in a form different from Esperanto, another auxiliary language, as Esperanto is a complete language yet needs to be learned, whereas Language Y could, if set up with cascading menus and automated localization, be used without needing to learn it.

I appreciate that the issue of scope is a separate issue from the requirement of needing to prove widespread usage. Maybe sometime one or more of the companies that have students for the summer might give them the project of trying to implement my invention and add their own ideas and see what they produce.

Perhaps that is the answer. Perhaps I am looking at it as a mathematician and they are looking at it from other viewpoints.

For example, I started off with conversations about the weather, on a sort of establish a minimal system that works with just a few sentences, then add another sentence and that works and makes the whole system better, and then so on recursively, in a sort of pure mathematics way. Perhaps others observed that and regarded it differently, having studied different subjects.

William

No, I don’t. It’s clear that you don’t, either, and that’s exactly the problem Van Anderson wrote about:

That lack of compatibility is, of course, what prompted the development of the Unicode standard. I’m reminded of the old quip: “Engineers love standards, that’s why they have so many of them!”