From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 19:38:01 EDT
On 23/07/2003 16:24, John Hudson wrote:
> As Peter Constable noted, though, we need to be sure that the use of
> CGJ in this context is clearly defined and, most importantly, is not
> going to conflict with other possible uses. Uniscribe may, in fact,
> handle the character in a way that works now, but if so we need to
> confirm that this is intentional and is not going to change.
> John Hudson
Understood. It seems that Uniscribe currently (though possibly
accidentally) supports the recommended Unicode 4.0 treatment of CGJ as a
default ignorable character. It would be perverse of Microsoft, which is
aware of the issue, to alter this behaviour of Uniscribe to make it less
conformant to Unicode 4.0.
Paul, I trust you have been following the many postings to the Unicode
list on this subject today. You may not have seen the closing comment of
my last posting, which John quoted in part:
And where, for that matter, is the "host of people [who] will fight that
proposal"? I hope they will now realise that the ogre they are fighting
is in fact, if not a handsome prince, at least quite harmless.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 20:23:41 EDT