From: Antoine Leca (Antoine10646@leca-marti.org)
Date: Tue Mar 28 2006 - 06:26:17 CST
On Tuesday, March 28th, 2006 10:12Z, Walter Keutgen wrote:
> my understanding of the intend of the Unicode standard is that such
> superscripting pertains to 'rich text properties'.
It seemed to me I was told the contrary (in
<msgid:000b01c64f98$d3cb57e0$6400a8c0@chalmers95a69n>, written on Saturday,
March 25th, 2006 00:15Z).
Not that it really matters much to me (it does not, as I explained in the
message you answered, by the end: I am not a purist), but this is quite a
bit difficult to sort out.
I sustain a position which is seen as incorrect by some people; and I try to
use corner cases counter-examples to show what I see as contradictions (like
the one you noted above).
And the real problem is that some of these contradictions, can easily be
considered as... errors in the Standard, or things that are in process of
correction, etc.
As we agreed with Kent in the said thread, the result is chaos; and the only
people which are really hurt by that, are the actual users of these
characters, which are lacking precise and firm-standing guiding rules.
> Some superscripts are encoded as characters. For historical reasons
> e.g. compatibility with existing charcater sets?
Is it a question?
To a certain extent, that is true.
Some other (like the characters under question, IIUC) might have been
introduced as an aid to encoded phoneticians uses (of those superscripts in
what is ordinarily encoded as plain text, hence the initial motivation.)
> If complaining that U+1D50 and 1D49 do not display,
Ay, my fault! I am really sorry here.
I did not complain, it was really a joke initially.
I beg your pardon for the confusion it caused.
Antoine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 28 2006 - 06:29:16 CST