----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Kenneth Whistler" <kenw@sybase.com>
À : <pandries@iti.qc.ca>
Cc : <unicode@unicode.org>; <kenw@sybase.com>
Envoyé : 12 juin 2001 22:14
Objet : Re: U+2011 and U+2010
> Patrick Andries asked:
>
> > The Unicode Standard 3.0 (page 150) says that "U+2011 NON-BREAKING
HYPHEN is
> > present for compatibility with existing standards" as if it shouldn't
really
> > be encoded. But isn't its relation to U+2010, the same as the one that
> > opposes SPACE to NO-BREAK SPACE, i.e. a semantic (behavioural) one ?
>
> "Compatibility" in this sense doesn't necessarily mean "shouldn't have
> been encoded".
>
> In fact, in this particular case, if I recall, the distinctions were
> probably considered to be good practice, and not something to be mapped
> away. XCCS was often a *model* for early Unicode, rather than a character
> encoding that forced the grudging inclusion of many icky "characters"
> that we would have preferred didn't have to be there.
>
> Keep in mind that U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE is *also* a compatibility
> character -- for compatibility with ISO 8859-1, among other character
> sets.
I personnaly believe it was wise to code the NO-BREAK nature of U+00A0 and
U+2011and thus distinguish these characters from their breakable
counterparts (U+0020 and U+2010). But then why do not all spaces form such
pairs (e.g. U+2009 and U+200A) ?
P. Andries
Saint-Hubert (Québec)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:18 EDT