Apparent discrepanccy between FAQ and Age.txt

Steffen Nurpmeso sdaoden at
Tue Jun 10 12:05:38 CDT 2014


Karl Williamson <public at> wrote:
 |The FAQ
 |says that the last 2 code points on the planes except BMP were made 
 |noncharacters in TUS 3.1.  DerivedAge.txt gives 2.0 for these.

The (nothing but informational except for @missing lines) comments
in DerivedAge.txt state very clearly:

 # - The supplementary private use code points and the non-character code points
 #   were assigned in version 2.0, but not specifically listed in the UCD
 #   until versions 3.0 and 3.1 respectively.

 |"The conformance wording about U+FFFE and U+FFFF changed somewhat in 
 |Unicode 2.0, but these were still the only two code points with this 
 |unique status"
 |Unicode 3.1 [2001] was the watershed for the development of 
 |noncharacters in the standard. Unicode 3.1 was the first version to add 
 |supplementary characters to the standard. As a result, it also had to 
 |come to grips with the fact the ISO/IEC 10646-2:2001 had reserved the 
 |last two code points for every plane as "not a character"

Less scattering of information would be a pretty cool thing
nonetheless.  I.e., i think it would be less academical but much
nicer if no FAQ would be necessary at all because the standard as
such covers background information, too.
I remember that one of the reasons i stopped any effort to go with
(the about 120 German Mark book of) Unicode 3.0 was that i was
incapable to wrap my head around a combining arabic example
somewhere; you need access to technical reports to get it done.


More information about the Unicode mailing list