From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Mar 28 2003 - 18:29:16 EST
Thanks for reminding me; an note was to be added to that effect. I've added
that to a new version, and sent it to the editorial committee for checking.
Should be live early next week.
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
fax: (408) 256-0799
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Ewell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Unicode Mailing List" <email@example.com>; "Mark Davis"
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 17:31
Subject: Inherited-script characters
> Last December, Mark Davis indicated that a passage similar to the
> following would (or should) be added to UTR #24, "Script Names":
> > Whatever their script property values, characters with general
> > categories of Mn and Me should also inherit their script from their
> > base character. The nominal script property value for these characters
> > may be different from INHERITED in cases where the best interpretation
> > of that character in isolation would be a specific script.
> This meant that implementations would need to take the General Category,
> not just the script name, into account when interpreting UTR #24 (now
> proposed to be upgraded to a UAX). This is a reasonable change, but a
> change nonetheless. I complained briefly about the extra overhead, then
> got over it and added it to my "Scripts" program.
> In the proposed update to #24, I don't see anything about treating
> characters with a General Category of "Mn" or "Me" differently. Was the
> change scuttled, or just overlooked?
> -Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 28 2003 - 19:00:20 EST