From: John Cowan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 12:56:57 EDT
Michael Everson scripsit:
> And sometimes not, then. What four characters have been corrected so
> far? Were they "important" characters to some company? Are there no
> Christians or Jews in the IETF who might care about a problem like
> this, where a simple solution might be effected? Particularly if it
> involves only a handful of characters, and the precedent for making
> such corrections has been set?
Every time your grip slips on the rope, that sets a precedent which will
in time tend to end up with you at the bottom of the mountain. The hard way.
So far we have corrected U+FB1D YOD WITH HIRIQ and six Han ideographs,
U+F951, U+2F868, U+2F874, U+2F91F, U+2F95F, U+2F9BF.
> This is not analogous to the present situation, it seems to me. In
> the first place, what else is the \ for? :-)
Escaping special characters, since you ask.
-- John Cowan email@example.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com "If he has seen farther than others, it is because he is standing on a stack of dwarves." --Mike Champion, describing Tim Berners-Lee (adapted)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 13:29:46 EDT