RE: Never say never

From: Marco Cimarosti (
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 05:26:19 EST

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Never say never"

    Kenneth Whistler wrote:
    > > Marco Cimarosti wrote:
    > > > It has been repeated a lot of times that no more
    > precomposed character
    > > will
    > > > never ever ever ever be added. ...
    > I trust the clarification from John Cowan helped on this -- there
    > is no prohibition against adding characters with *compatibility*
    > decomposition mappings, because compatibility decompositions do
    > not recompose under normalization.

    Yes, sorry for having misused the term "precomposed"; I should have said

    I did notice that the new character just has a compatibility decomposition:
    if it had a canonical composition, I would have posted a formal error report
    to "", rather than just a lazy comment on the Unicode

    I am not arguing that that "FAX" poses any technical problem, but rather
    what looks like case of disattended policies. People asking why Unicode
    doesn't contain a character for symbol <XYZ> are routinely answered that:
    "Symbol <XYZ> would not be added as a character because it is just of
    sequence of the existing characters <U+xxxx U+yyyy U+zzzz>". After a few
    such sound answers, one wonders why this is not also true for <FAX>, <LTD>,
    <gal>, or <dmē> (all of them new characters in 4.0).

    In a private mail someone called this an HMS-Pinafore-policy, after a song
    in a comic opera, "HMS Pinafore", in which the captain of the ship sings
    about his exploits and the things that he has never done:

            Chorus: "What never?"
            Captain: "No, never."
            Chorus: "What .... never ....?"
            Captain: "Well .... hardly ever."

    Shouldn't these lyrics be added somewhere in the FAQ? :-)

    _ Marco

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 06:08:45 EST