From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 06:49:44 EDT
On 25/08/2003 01:13, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>Peter Kirk wrote:
>>Well, the situation with Hebrew sof pasuq is almost identical to that
>>for Greek and Arabic question marks, except that it is functionally a
>>full stop not a question mark, so I can't see any reason other than
>>prejudice for omitting it from the list.
>Well, I had a much better reason than prejudice: ignorance. :-)
OK, understood! Actually I had more problems with Mark's refusal to
extend your list.
>Well, the requirement for an invariable set seems to be part of the "rules
>of the game" with this UTR, so I'll stick to it.
Well, I was taking a rather different approach: noting that UTR31 is so
far only a "proposed draft", I was suggesting a change to the rules of
>I guess that this requirement is due to backward compatibility issues. If
>version X of a certain programming language accepts identifier "foo:bar"
>(where ":" is a certain mark), it is not acceptable that version X+1 of the
>same language treats the same sequence as a syntax error: that would make
>existing source code in that language potentially unusable.
But the other way round is less of a problem. So I am suggesting that
for now we define all punctuation characters except for those with
specifically defined operator functions, also all undefined characters,
as giving a syntax error. This makes it possible to define additional
punctuation characters, even those in so far undefined scripts like
Tifinagh, as valid operators in future versions.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 07:44:31 EDT