From: Keyur Shroff (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 04 2003 - 00:06:52 EST
--- Kenneth Whistler <email@example.com> wrote:
> This depends greatly on what implementation you did for
> sorting and searching, and how it handles unassigned code points
> in your Unicode 2.0 code. If the code was designed to be
> forward compatible, it should do reasonable things with
> unassigned code points, and getting Unicode 3.0 data which
> is actually using those code points should not disturb your
> existing code. But, on the other hand, if you have built
> in a bunch of range checks or have used tables which cannot
> gracefully handle the appearance of unassigned code points
> in your data, then it could well blow up.
Can you please explain what is the best practice to handle unassigned code
points so that applications can easily become forward compatible? If we
just ignore unassigned code points, then will it make for application
easier to migrate to later version of Unicode?
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 04 2003 - 00:51:42 EST