1. You give no values for the range 00 to 7F. As it stands, this means that
these characters are undefined in the standard, and would map to FFFD. I
suspect, on the other hand, from the text that these are really ASCII clones.
If so, you should define them explicitly, as in
2. However, if this is done, then the situation is still quite odd. The
Persian standard would then not round-trip to and from Unicode since both 7F
and FF would map to 007F. I am curious just as to how a Persian DELETE would
differ from an ASCII one.
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> Dear all,
> After a thorough restudy of the Persian version of ISIRI-3342 standard,
> I found that my previous posted conversion table from ISIRI-3342 to
> Unicode had some problems. If you need a copy of the new version, refetch
> it from
> BTW, the changes are:
> 1. I had missed the 0xFF, thinking it is not used in the standard, but the
> standard says that it is a Persian DELETE character so mapping to U+007F.
> 2. The upper control characters (0x80--0x9F) are not the C1 control
> characters as I thought. They are Persian versions of C0 controls, with
> explicit mention of this in the standard. So they are now mapped to U+0000
> to U+001F and not U+008F to U+009F.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:56 EDT