On 06/04/2002 05:13:09 AM Peter_Constable wrote:
>I understand. I'm not arguing at this point that the combining classes
>should be changed (though I would were it a possibility) -- if you look at
>my earlier post in this thread, you'll see that I explained to Khun
Samphan
>that this is not a possibility.
I will add, though, that this is impossible due only to a principle, and
not because there would be any real problems with existing data being
invalidated. We all know for a fact that there are not yet any existing
implementations of Khmer, hence no existing data to be affected by any
change in normalisation. I strongly believe that the same is true of
Myanmar. And while there are implementations of Thai and may well be for
Lao, the combinations affected by the combining class issue I mentioned
would only occur in less common languages, and the only people with such
data (if there is any such data in Unicode -- I very much suspect it still
exists only in custom encodings) would probably prefer (because their needs
would be better served) to have the combining classes changed.
Not that I expect that to change the corporate mind of UTC, since it's not
good enough just to limit changes to anything that doesn't affect any
actual normalised data; rather, the good purple book doth say, "Thou shalt
avoid even the appearance of normalised-data-breaking evil."
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 04 2002 - 08:13:39 EDT