From: Doug Ewell (doug@ewellic.org)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 19:14:51 CST
Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:
> Finally, I want to remind you again, that the decision tree for
> deciding to encode compatibility characters is different from the
> decision tree for ordinary characters. For the latter you start with
> "are they plain text". For the former you start with "are they
> interchanged". That makes all the difference in the world, and
> confusing these two cases, as several participants in this discussion
> continue to do isn't helping anyone. Let alone helping UTC come up
> with a solid decision.
In http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2009-m01/0077.html I
asked for a pointer to a full definition of "compatibility character" in
the Unicode 5.x text that would cover "a character that is *completely
unrelated* to any other character in the standard but is encoded due to
'interoperability needs.'"
I have not yet seen one, and as I said at the time, that strongly
implies that the existing definitions are being pulled and stretched on
an ad-hoc basis to achieve the end goal of encoding this particular set
of pictures.
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 19:16:52 CST