From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 18:19:35 EDT
On 29/04/2004 14:04, Language Analysis Systems, Inc. Unicode list reader
wrote:
> ...
>
>I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the reason this is an issue
>is because people want to have variation selections for combining marks,
>and have them work right even in the presence of normalization. It does
>kind of seem like there's a need here, but let's discuss THAT problem
>rather than having the whole thing degenerate into long discussions
>about how the default PUA properties discriminate against certain
>classes of users. I don't think this is a problem you can solve with
>the PUA, although I do think you can work around it with the PUA.
>
>
>
This was indeed one of the original issues with which I started this
discussion. I also suggested that it would be better dealt with by
relaxing the current restrictions on use of variation selectors. The
normalisation issue is still a real one, but I had a practical proposal
for working round it. Unfortunately the PUA is not very useful for this,
largely because no PUA characters are default ignorable, which is more
or less a requirement for a variation selector.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 18:56:02 EDT