From: African Oracle (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 15:48:16 CDT
Better technical response than the one got from the guy at Microsoft.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Cline" <email@example.com>
To: "African Oracle" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 10:27 PM
Subject: RE: Just if and where is the then?
> > [Original Message]
> > From: African Oracle <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: <email@example.com>
> > Date: 5/4/2004 7:04:48 PM
> > Subject: Just if and where is the then?
> > If a can have U+0061 and have a composite that is U+00e2...U+...
> > If e can have U+0065 and have a composite that is U+00ea...U+...
> > Then why is e with accented grave or acute and dot below cannot be
> > assigned a single unicode value instead of the combinational values
> > 1EB9 0301 and etc....
> > Since UNICODE is gradually becoming a defacto, I still think it will not
> > be a bad idea to have such composite values.
> > Dele Olawole
> Take a look at the Unicode Stability Policy . While it does not make
> it impossible for there to be a Unicode character LATIN SMALL LETTER E
> WITH DOT BELOW AND ACUTE ACCENT that would decompose to
> U+1EB9 U+0301, such a character would have to have the Composition
> Exclusion property so that it would not appear in any of the Unicode
> Normalization Forms. A number of other standards, such as XML expect
> the data they contain to be handled in normalized form, hence even if
> the precomposed form were available, most software would still prefer
> to work with the unprecomposed form. The result is that unless there is
> another official character standard that has LATIN SMALL LETTER E
> WITH DOT BELOW AND ACUTE ACCENT as a character, there is no
> benefit to be gained by encoding such a character in Unicode. Even
> then, the benefit is very small as it is only that a transformation from a
> single codepoint of that other standard into a single codepoint of the
> Unicode standard could be done. That was an important consideration
> when Unicode was getting started, but is not particularly important now.
>  http://www.unicode.org/standard/stability_policy.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT