From: Antoine Leca (Antoine10646@Leca-Marti.org)
Date: Tue Jan 16 2007 - 11:52:28 CST
Rick McGowan wrote:
> The Unicode Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public
> review and comment. Details are on the following web page:
> http://www.unicode.org/review/index.html#pri100
> Briefly, the new issue is:
>
> Public Review Issue #100
> Giving U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT the ID_Continue Property
>
> The character U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT has the XID_Continue property, but
> not the ID_Continue property. It is the only character of this sort.
>
> The UTC is considering removing this exception, thus making the set of
> XID_Continue characters a proper subset of ID_Continue characters.
>
> Some further details are on the Review page:
Mainly a pointer to UAX31, which is far too complex for me to understand.
Can someone explain in few words what the proposed change will affect?
Particularly, I cannot decide if
avinguda Paral·lel;
would be made an acceptable identifier of supposed type "avinguda", and if
yes under which sets of rules (the "old, unrecommended" ones, i.e. using
ID_Continue, and/or the "new, recommended" ones using XID_Continue)?
Many thanks in advance.
Also, is it possible to made additional comments regarding the form UAX#31
is written? Particularly the use of "legacy" in paragraph 5.1; and also the
sentence "U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT is allowed in ID_Continue", which seems to me to
state exactly the opposite of what is exposed in the Public Review Issue
("U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT has [...] not the ID_Continue property", see above)...
Antoine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:55:40 CST