SC22/I18NRG N1110

Japanese position for the I18NRG meeting.
Date: 2005-03-08


We appreciate the contribution of WG20 for preparing standards for
internationalization businesses.  Language WGs can now define their
internationalization facilities utilizing these standards.

But the situation around us has been changed.  The character handling,
which has been the most important internationalization theme in SC22,
is moved to SC2.  Annex A of TR 10176 will be amended to reflect
additions of characters made by SC2, after SC2 creates a means to
specify the set of recommended characters for identifiers.

Other issues handled by WG20 seem to have less connection with the
works of language WGs.  Internationalization standards are valuable
only if they are referred to in some standards of concrete entities
such as programming languages, operating systems, etc.  We do not like
to have internationalization standards for their own sake.

Each programming language has its own interests in
internationalization.  Some of them want to have maximum
internationalization facilities, but some prefer to stay as a common
language without any localized deviations.  Thus we do not anticipate
the need for internationalization standards in SC 22 prepared
independently of programming languages, such as ones developed by WG20.

The remaining projects handled by WG20 have become outdated and
inactive.  TR 14652 is too controversial to stand as an international
standard.  IS 15897, which highly relies on the TR, has lost
interests; no action was taken for the standard after its FCD comment
disposition meeting held in October 2003.  We see no new proposals in
these 10 years other than cultural convention and string ordering.

Based on these observations, we consider that a permanent committee
which plays an active role in proposing, designing and defining
language independent internationalization facilities is no more
needed.  SC22 disbanded WG20 in its 2004 Plenary.

Moreover, we propose to cancel all the projects of WG20, which have
been moved to SC22 in its 2004 Plenary, at this time.

In the future, needs for a forum of internationalization may arise.
Language WGs may like to have advices on internationalization
facilities, multiple WGs may have a common problem related to
internationalization, etc.  In such cases, a language WG can propose
the formation of I18NRG in an SC22 Plenary and can have its
recommendations before the next SC22 Plenary.

I18NRG should have a passive status, not an active self-defining status.