The IETF is free to pursue topics and to develop specifications as it
sees fit. It most definitely is not tied to the work of any other group.
However, the general policy of IETF operations is to pay attention to work
done by other groups, particularly by other standards groups, and to use
as much of it as is reasonable. In other words, we can change or reject
other work, but only if we have a very, very good reason. We definitely
do not simply ignore such other work. We need to have an alternative
that we deem superior.
This is a reasonable position to take and I support it. However, it is not
directly relevant to character set issues because it isn't possible to simply
enbrace the work done by other groups. The problem in a nutshell is that
there's too much work done by too many groups with entirely different agendas,
resulting in conflicting, competing, and overlapping standards.
The IETF must therefore pick and choose between these efforts; the alternative
of embracing everything violates numerous principles and requirements:
simplicity, elegance, lack of ambiguity.
Please note that I am not commenting on the quality of this particular
ISO effort and do not wish to engage in that discussion. Rather, I am
commenting on your apparent assertion that we do not need to care
about ISO work.
Neither am I.
I hope that this clarifies the question of IETF use of outside work by
other standards bodies.
I don't think it does. It is nice when there's nice clean unambiguous work
done by a small number of other groups, but character sets don't fit this
model.
Ned