From: vunzndi@vfemail.net
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 04:35:51 CST
Quoting "Asmus Freytag" <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>:
> On 1/8/2009 6:39 PM, Christopher Fynn wrote:
>> ... there are already cell phones available in Tibet which use a
>> pre-composed Tibetan character set:
>> <http://www.actapress.com/PaperInfo.aspx?PaperID=30325>.
> As long as these Tibetan character sets can't actually express
> something that can't also be expressed in the standard Unicode
> encoding of Tibetan, there's no issue here. The requirement is to
> losslessly convert and roundtrip the text, not the code element. In
> particular, if they are true pre-composed characters it should
> always be possbile to transcode them using their decomposition in
> Unicode and then to compose back on re-conversion.
>
> The only issue arises, when these conversions aren't unique - as was
> the case with converting from shaped, visual ordered Arabic to
> Unicode's implictly ordered and implicitly shaped Arabic. At that
> point, pressure arose to add compatibility characters for positional
> presentation forms in order to allow lossless transcoding of legacy
> data.
>
As the proposal stands a number of the emoji are in fact duplicates of
existing unicode characters - the principle of non duplication has not
always been applied.
Take for example:-
"e-B45
U+1F4FD CROSS MARK
Temporary Notes: bad; NO GOOD, not approved; X in tic tac toe.
Tentatively disunified from U+2715"
vs
"e-B53
U+2716 HEAVY MULTIPLICATION X
Temporary Notes: Unified with U+2716"
It is hard to see why one is unified and the other is not.
John Knightley
>
> A./
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 07:34:21 CST