From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Oct 08 2003 - 16:25:04 CST
On 08/10/2003 14:26, Unicode (public) wrote:
>... But backward compatibility is also good-- it
>means the solution was good enough in the first place that people are
>using it.
>
>
Not sure about this one, in the Unicode context in general. I have been
told of all sorts of things which cannot be done in the name of backward
compatibility even when it is demonstrated that the original solution
was completely broken and it seems that no one had ever used it -
because it cannot be guaranteed that no one has tried to use it, and so
there just might be some broken or kludged texts out there whose
integrity has to be guaranteed. I'm not saying that is a bad policy,
just that the existence of the policy is not grounds for
self-congratulation that none of the old solutions are broken.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST