Re: ISO 10646 compliance and EU law

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Thu Jan 06 2005 - 12:40:28 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Unicode and Levenshtein?"

    On 06/01/2005 14:38, Philippe VERDY wrote:

    > ...
    >And I don't think that GB18030 will be amended such a way: it could be only a temporary solution, before new assignments will be added in the ISO/IEC 10646 repertoire, and synchronized with Unicode which still must obey to its own policy about the stability of canonical and compatibility equivalence (this means that, if usch precomposed characters that GB18030 would allow to decompose to other existing characters already mapped standard ISO/IEC 10646 codepoints, will not have any canonical or compatibility equivalence in Unicode; this does not affect conformance with ISO/IEC 10646 where such equivalences do not exist and are not defined; but it would be a real inconvenience if these precomposed characters were assigned standard codepoints out of PUAs, because it would become impossible to define a mutual agreement about such additional equivalences, which are only permitted with PUAs).
    It is surely possible for Unicode, within its stability policy, to add
    new precomposed characters with canonical decompositions if these are
    also defined as composition exceptions, alongside existing Hebrew,
    Arabic etc presentation forms which are composition exceptions. The UTC
    might be reluctant to do so, but if it comes under strong pressure to do
    this from the Chinese standards body through WG2, I see no compelling
    reason why the UTC should refuse this. There is nothing in the stability
    policy to force it to refuse new presentation forms of this kind.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)
    No virus found in this outgoing message.
    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
    Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 03/01/2005

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 06 2005 - 12:56:42 CST