Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels

From: John Hudson (
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 15:15:28 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels"

    At 10:50 AM 6/25/2003, Michael Everson wrote:

    >At 18:26 +0100 2003-06-25, Michael Everson wrote:
    >>You'd like to think so. But "Deprecate TIBETAN THINGY and add TIBETAN
    >>THINGY BIS so that we can fix the problem" is utterly ridiculous.
    >And by that I mean, given the TWO standards Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646,
    >adding duplicate characters is frowned upon, so it should be less
    >preferable than UTC fixing broken classes if they really are broken.

    Is breaking existing implementations better? My understanding is that
    combining classes will not be changed because to do so will break existing
    normalisation implementations. Ergo, the only way to create a new combining
    class for a character is to encode a new character and deprecate the old
    one. I'm not saying I like this, but this is how it has been explained to
    me with regard to the very clearly erroneous Hebrew mark combining classes
    which demonstrably break Biblical Hebrew text. In this case, any existing
    normalisation for Hebrew is already broken -- in the sense of destroying
    Biblical Hebrew text -- but still the argument from the UTC seems to be
    that even broken implementations -- broken because the standard is broken
    -- must not be broken.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC

    If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores,
    are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine,
    who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint
    Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
                                                                 - Umberto Eco

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 16:14:52 EDT