Re: Merging combining classes, was: New contribution N2676

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 19:21:35 EST

  • Next message: YTang0648@aol.com: "Re: UTF-16 inside UTF-8"

    On 05/11/2003 15:13, Peter Constable wrote:

    >>-----Original Message-----
    >>From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
    >>
    >>
    >On
    >
    >
    >>Behalf Of Peter Kirk
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >>But I am not sure that this get-out clause should
    >>be applicable to a process which claims as its very essence "to
    >>
    >>
    >support
    >
    >
    >>correct positioning of nonspacing marks" but actually supports only a
    >>particular arbitrary (non even canonical) order.
    >>
    >>I would like to see this clause tightened up to say that a process
    >>
    >>
    >which
    >
    >
    >>claims to interpret properly a particular sequence of marks must
    >>interpret all canonically equivalent variants of that sequence
    >>identically, with the exception of special modes to show the
    >>
    >>
    >underlying
    >
    >
    >>character sequence.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >That can't happen unless Unicode gives some definition to "claims to
    >interpret properly a particular sequence of marks", and that is not
    >likely to happen any decade soon.
    >
    >
    >...
    >
    >Conformance does not obligate a process to interpret any coded character
    >representation, no matter what other coded character representations it
    >may interpret.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    It seems to me that the Unicode conformance clauses are so weak as to be
    almost useless. An application can claim to conform to Unicode but
    hardly do anything. A font can be sold, for example, as a Unicode Hebrew
    font while successfully rendering only a very small part of the Hebrew
    script. I would like to see a stronger set of conformance requirements
    etc, so that for example an application, or a rendering system, can make
    a claim to support Unicode version N for script X if and only is it
    properly processes, renders etc all characters defined for script X in
    version N according to the semantics defined in version N, and allowing
    for canonical equivalence. Well, that's a two minute summary of an idea
    which needs further thought. But I hope the general point comes across.
    Without this kind of conformance guarantee we are in for a period of
    chaos, when everyone can claim to conform to Unicode but no one has any
    obligation to deliver anything more than the very basics.

    -- 
    Peter Kirk
    peter@qaya.org (personal)
    peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
    http://www.qaya.org/
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 05 2003 - 20:10:01 EST