asmusf at ix.netcom.com
Wed Jul 2 11:37:06 CDT 2014
On 7/2/2014 8:02 AM, Karl Williamson wrote:
> Corrigendum #9 has changed this so much that people are coming to me
> and saying that inputs may very well have non-characters, and that the
> default should be to pass them through. Since we have no published
> wording for how the TUS will absorb Corrigendum #9, I don't know how
> this will play out. But this abrupt a change seems wrong to me, and
> it was done without public input or really adequate time to consider
> its effects.
> Non-characters are still designed solely for internal use, and hence I
> think the default for a gatekeeper should still be to exclude them.
This is the crux of this issue.
The Corrigendum was introduced with the intent to allow users to lean on
library and tool writers to adopt a permissive attitude - by removing
what many among the developers of such software had seen as language
that endorsed or even encouraged strong filtering.
> On 06/12/2014 11:14 PM, Peter Constable wrote:
> I get the impression that you think that Unicode conformance
> requirements have historically provided that guarantee, and that
> Corrigendum #9 broke that. If so, then that is a mistaken
> understanding of Unicode conformance.
Not so much an issue of "guarantee", but language that was treating
strong filtering as the default, and that was understood as such in the
More information about the Unicode