> Антон Тагунов <atagunov@online.ptt.ru> wrote regarding Definition D5:
>
> > Every time I read the following passage in
> > http://www.unicode.org/unicode/uni2book/ch03.pdf
> > I get confused:
> >
> > - A single abstract character may correspond to more then one code
> > value - ...
> > - Multiple code values may be required to represent a single abstract
> > character.
Currently, in the Version 4.0 draft, rewritten to:
- A single abstract character may correspond to more than one code
point ... [[ Angstrom and A-ring example ]]
- A single abstract character may also be represented by a sequence of
code points ... [[ G-acute example ]]
> I do think the text here is unclear about "code values" and "code
> units." It says they are the same thing, and then uses both terms
> interchangeably, which is a bit confusing for a standard.
Yep. The phrase "code value" was one of the first targets for our
terminological search and destroy missions, and it has been almost
entirely eliminated because of its ambiguity.
> Incorporating the concepts from UTR #17 into the main text is one place
> where the "language tightening" project for Unicode 4.0 should really
> pay off.
And that is exactly where the editors are heading.
--Ken
>
> -Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Apr 10 2002 - 13:06:23 EDT