At 01:44 01/07/21 -0400, DougEwell2@cs.com wrote:
>In a message dated 2001-07-20 6:19:24 Pacific Daylight Time, duerst@w3.org
>writes:
>
> > You can find a better way to do furigana, and an answer to many
> > of your questions, at http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby (the Ruby Annotation
> > Recommendation).
>
>Patrick's original question concerned an undocumented, but arguably legal,
>way of using the Unicode interlinear annotation characters.
>
>Martin's response makes it sound as though the annotation characters have the
>Plane 14 nature: they were brought into this world with strong warnings never
>to use them, but instead to use an equivalent mechanism in HTML, XML, or some
>other higher-level protocol.
As far as I understand the history of these characters and their
current use, I think this is true. The following may give more information:
http://www.w3.org/TR/unicode-xml/#Interlinear
>TUS 3.0 says (p. 326) that the use of annotation characters is "strongly
>discouraged without prior agreement between the sender and the receiver." Is
>this as strong a statement as the one in Unicode 3.1 concerning language
>tags, which states that they are not to be used at all except in the presence
>of specific protocols?
The language here is slightly different, and I have no idea whether
the intent was exactly the same, but in any case it seems that the
intents were very close to each other.
Regards, Martin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 04:42:07 EDT