From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 06:03:29 EDT
At 04:22 -0500 2003-06-27, Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>In discussing these issues among Biblical Hebrew implementers,
>content providers and users, I have had to explain repeatedly why
>UTC doesn't want to consider this. It is completely obvious to them
>that this is the right solution. Even on explaining the impact on
>normalization, the response is that there is no impact since
>implementations and content using Unicode do not yet exist.
Indeed, but the UTC doesn't want to change the normalization stuff
even where there are obvious errors, for philosophic reasons, I
suppose. I mean who are all the implementors who depend on these
tables? Often Unicoders have claimed "existing implementations" even
where none can be shown to exist. Now Ken tempts us with:
"This is just one more in the accumulating pile of little problems in
the decompositions locked down by normalization that will eventually
result in the committee going "Spaaannggg!" and agreeing to publish
and maintain a separate, corrected list of equivalences "As She
Oughta Been" which are not constrained by the formal stability
guarantees of UAX #15 normalization forms."
I'd like to understand how deprecating a character and adding a
duplicate one with the right properties differs from deprecating a
version of UAX #15 in favour of an Oughta-Been table.
>I think it would be better to create a new character for this purpose than
>to use ZWJ in yet another way.
I suppose CGJ is tempting.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 06:38:46 EDT