From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 20:59:31 EST
From: "Michael Everson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> At 02:00 +0100 2004-01-06, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> >From: "Kenneth Whistler" <email@example.com>
> >> When the combination of character name and representative
> >> glyph and associated informative annotations is insufficient
> >> to correctly identify a character in the standard, the
> >> recourse is to Ask the Experts and request further annotation
> >> of the standard to assist future users from running into the
> >> same problem.
> >Thanks for your view on this issue. It is far less extreme than the
> >position, which just consists in saying "informative" without more
> >justification, when you clearly admit that they are also mandatory.
> Ken and I hold the same view and have the same position. Things may
> be mandatory and informative, or they may be mandatory and normative.
Certainly: but the "mandatory" concept is missing in the standard (or I
know where it is). I accept the fact that an information may be necessary
for the interpretation of the standard, and in proposals. Now we can
as long as the necessary informations are also published.
If there are information in proposals that are not included in the standard,
all interpretations become possible. The glyph as well as added ISO
comments in the UCD, are good. But I wonder if all comments like informative
names or linguistic usage found in charts are also found in a data file
for Han characters which have extensive information in UniHan.txt, even if
information is still incomplete or may still contain errors).
So when the glyph is wrong in the standard, it must be corrected to remove
the possibility of false interpretations, which may produce
notably when creating charset mappings, transliteration algorithms, or
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 21:45:04 EST