RE: Deprecated characters in Unicode 5.1 vs Unicode 5.2

• Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: CSUR Tonal"
• Maybe in reply to: Hyungrok Kim: "Deprecated characters in Unicode 5.1 vs Unicode 5.2"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote:

> The UTC discussion essentially concluded that "Deprecated" had
> been used too imprecisely, and should be limited to only those
> characters which had serious *architectural* problems for their
> use -- not merely characters that amounted to duplicates or
> ones that various people felt should be discouraged from use for
> one reason or another.

So that means the ability to embed Plane 14 tag characters in text to
identify language was deemed a "serious architectural problem"?

Now MLSF — the UTF-8 hack that Plane 14 characters were invented to
forestall — would have been a serious architectural problem in my
book.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­

• Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Plane 14 Language Tags, Round 17 (was: RE: Deprecated characters in Unicode 5.1 vs Unicode 5.2"
• Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: CSUR Tonal"
• Maybe in reply to: Hyungrok Kim: "Deprecated characters in Unicode 5.1 vs Unicode 5.2"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 17 2010 - 15:03:43 CDT