Re: Taboo Variants

From: Kenneth Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Fri Aug 09 2002 - 14:53:27 EDT


Lest everyone go scrabbling off the deep end and drown on
this particular thread, I would like to point out the following
facts:

U+2FDF IDEOGRAPHIC TABOO VARIATION INDICATOR

was accepted by the UTC on April 30, 2002. However, when the
proposal was taken into WG2 it met a wall of opposition led
by China. WG2 did *NOT* accept the character, and it is not
a part of the FPDAM 2 currently being ballotted for inclusion
in 10646.

The UTC will have to deal with this mismatch (along with a number
of others) in its upcoming meeting this month.

China's clear preference is to simply encode all the taboo
variants as separate characters. At the WG2 meeting, they
pointed out a number of instances already encoded in Extension B,
as you have. And with China not wanting an IDEOGRAPHIC TABOO
VARIATION INDICATOR encoded, many other members of WG2 will
defer to their opinion on the topic.

This issue clearly needs to be worked further in the IRG context
before a consensus will emerge.

At any rate, don't consider it a done deal. What
matters is what eventually gets published in the final, approved
Amendment 2 for ISO/IEC 10646, which *will* match what we
publish in Unicode 4.0.

--Ken



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Aug 09 2002 - 12:51:12 EDT