Re: Display of Isolated Nonspacing Marks (was Re: Questions on ZWNBS...)

From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Wed Aug 06 2003 - 20:17:19 EDT

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Questions on ZWNBS - for line initial holam plus alef"

    Moreover, as I wrote before, the wording in that one paragraph in 3.0
    is not clearly stated, but it is clear from a reading of the rest of
    the standard -- with numerous examples -- and from the UCD 3.0
    properties, that space *is not* a format character, and *is* a
    suitable base for combining marks. So the little coy remark below is
    not warranted with respect to combining marks on space.

    > > OK, understood now. As the previous version is obsolete, and the
    new one
    > > is unavailable, we can all take a break from conforming to Unicode
    at

    Mark
    __________________________________
    http://www.macchiato.com
    ► “Eppur si muove” ◄

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Kenneth Whistler" <kenw@sybase.com>
    To: <peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com>
    Cc: <unicode@unicode.org>; <kenw@sybase.com>
    Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 15:48
    Subject: Re: Display of Isolated Nonspacing Marks (was Re: Questions
    on ZWNBS...)

    > Peter Kirk responded to my plea for everyone to relax a bit:
    >
    > > >If everyone would just go off for a week or two on their
    > > >August vacation, like they should be, we could all come back
    > > >about Labor Day and we wouldn't have to be having these
    > > >discussions. ;-)
    > > >
    > > >--Ken
    >
    > > OK, understood now. As the previous version is obsolete, and the
    new one
    > > is unavailable, we can all take a break from conforming to Unicode
    at
    > > all and take a vacation! Sounds a good idea to me ;-)
    >
    > Just in the interest of truth in advertising, the previous
    > version(s) are not obsolete, but are superseded by Unicode 4.0.
    > ^^^
    >
    > Applications claiming conformance to Unicode 3.0 will continue
    > to claim conformance to that version, and that version is
    > relevant to their claim. And so on for Unicode 3.1 and
    > Unicode 3.2.
    >
    > But if and when people move on to claiming conformance to
    > Unicode 4.0, then it is the text of *that* version which becomes
    > relevant to their claim.
    >
    > We are simply in the inconvenient transition state where people
    > are building Unicode 4.0 implementations, but the final, final
    > text of the *book* (as opposed to the various UAX's and all
    > the data files) is not available. There were similar
    > transition periods for Unicode 1.0, Unicode 2.0, and Unicode 3.0,
    > and nearly everyone understands that is the nature of things.
    >
    > So yes, please, it's time to take a vacation! >:)
    >
    > --Ken
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 20:58:58 EDT