asmusf at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jun 3 11:15:27 CDT 2014
On 6/3/2014 12:09 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2014/06/03 07:08, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>> On 6/2/2014 2:53 PM, Markus Scherer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:32 PM, David Starner <prosfilaes at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:prosfilaes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> I would especially discourage any web browser from handling
>>> these; they're noncharacters used for unknown purposes that are
>>> undisplayable and if used carelessly for their stated purpose, can
>>> probably trigger serious bugs in some lamebrained utility.
>>> I don't expect "handling these" in web browsers and lamebrained
>>> utilities. I expect "treat like unassigned code points".
> Expecting them to be treated like unassigned code points shows that
> their use is a bad idea: Since when does the Unicode Consortium use
> unassigned code points (and the like) in plain sight?
>> I can't shake the suspicion that Corrigendum #9 is not actually solving
>> a general problem, ...
> I have to fully agree with Asmus, Richard, Shawn and others that the
> use of non-characters in CLDR is a very bad and dangerous example.
> However convenient the misuse of some of these codepoints in CLDR may
> be, it sets a very bad example for everybody else. Unicode itself
> should not just be twice as careful with the use of its own
> codepoints, but 10 times as careful.
> I'd strongly suggest that completely independent of when and how
> Corrigendum #9 gets tweaked or fixed, a quick and firm plan gets
> worked out for how to get rid of these codepoints in CLDR data. The
> sooner, the better.
> Regards, Martin.
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
More information about the Unicode