From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 06:48:54 EST
On 05/01/2004 17:37, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>Michael Everson has asserted that U+0184/U+0185 *are* the intended
>characters for the Pan-Turkic Latin alphabetic use of the Cyrillic
>soft sign letter. This is at odds with the history of the Unicode
>Standard and with Michael's own prior assertion in:
>"Latin <soft sign> [is] not encoded in the UCS, complicating
>things like monolingual multiscript ordering since the current
>UCS expects Cyrillic <soft sign> to do double duty." [2000-06-02]
>That earlier statement by Michael correctly reflects the intent
>of the standard, I believe. It also correctly reflects Michael's
>observation earlier today:
>>In Pan-Turkic, though, it looks just like CYRILLIC SOFT SIGN in all
>>the sources I have seen. For lots of languages.
>And the Unicode solution for that, to date, has been that since
>it "looks just like" the CYRILLIC SOFT SIGN in all the sources,
>by gum, it *is* the CYRILLIC SOFT SIGN.
I hope that Ken, Michael and others can agree on a resolution of this
issue. I don't care much either way, although Michael's way seems
preferable to me since we have a suitable Latin letter already encoded.
But, whichever way, please can we have it clearly defined with an
informative note in the standard. After all, it will be a bit tedious
and inefficient if each time someone wants to know which character to
use they have to spark off a new debate on this issue.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 07:38:04 EST