-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Doug Ewell wrote:
> [...] Beyond a certain point in time (defined as Unicode 3.1), no new
> canonical or compatibility equivalences can be defined.
Huh? What about the compatibility ideographs U+FA30..FA6A, added in 3.2?
Or U+2047 DOUBLE QUESTION MARK, also added in 3.2?
A correct statement of the policy is that no newly assigned character can
*canonically* decompose to *two characters* unless it is added to the
composition exclusion list.
- --
David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>
Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBPO6mzjkCAxeYt5gVAQHBswf/dFDQapAcGOWu+lVn47ZIz+azsachQALj
aws8rBZ5v9vSPT6KGVxdTVpPRtGEiLtNcFr5mEGnvQBaQ/eYBqb+xFnXVxPbxa4u
Vks8wRKTY6cEAlhzNFI/3da9Y9cb77PgAhtJVIniZwbDaqkI1a0K/y9DwJvXSl6O
r3RC6J55L2k/B+jbT7JvacRpvrKwOGwvQUiec+krs2u0D0Z64lCUjVAqgVTv+AYQ
1x1blsyqeEZSzH02W5q//JzFHI7+AADd3O1OZpzi3lUiNNTR7NZDBjtX3D4OEuLv
AvzkywQCaPbr7Sgl4Y/6uJ6Zz4/FzPS6B1FjoyfE62rGlSTEpvadvA==
=BfyB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri May 24 2002 - 14:48:31 EDT