From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 16:34:52 EST
At 21:50 +0100 2004-01-03, Philippe Verdy wrote privately to me:
>From: "Michael Everson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Philippe said:
>> >In Unicode, the glyphs are normative in a way that they allow
>> >character identification, but they are not mandatory, so they are
>> >mostly informative.
>> This is not true, Philippe. In fact, it is so dreadfully and
>> misleadingly untrue that all I can suggest is that you go back to
>> page one of the Unicode Standard and start over.
>I have read it. Glyphs are just normative as a way to demonstrate a
>valid representation of the encoded code point, so that any other
>aceptable glyph should be unambiguously identified as the same
>character. So these glyphs are normative but not mandatory. Is that
>a more acceptable formulation?
NO, IT IS NOT.
Is that clear enough for you?
You are spreading MISINFORMATION about Unicode, and this is
reprehensible. Particularly when people give you, time and again,
The glyphs are not normative.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2004 - 17:06:57 EST