At 05:59 26/07/02 -0700, James Kass wrote:
>Martin Kochanski wrote,
>> As a software publisher, I would argue that the rendering and
>> behaviour of a given Unicode code point should *never* change:
>> literally never, even if the script is long dead, no-one can read
>> it, and the glyph has acquired an offensive meaning, like the
>> once innocent swastika. I want people to be still using our software
>> in 20 years' time without the need for constant updates.
>If you'd consider changing the phrase "rendering and behaviour" in
>your paragraph above to "semantics or meaning" and dropping the
>part about "constant update", I'd be pleased to stand by your side
>and help you argue.
You're quite right! I said "rendering" by accident, not really meaning it -- especially since most application programs don't do any interesting rendering anyway but leave it to the operating system, or fonts, or other components generally.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 26 2002 - 08:20:54 EDT