Re: Open Issue #61: Proposed Update UAX #15 Unicode Normalization Forms

From: Simon Josefsson (jas@extundo.com)
Date: Wed Jan 26 2005 - 16:27:01 CST

  • Next message: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: Open Issue #61: Proposed Update UAX #15 Unicode Normalization Forms"

    "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" <michka@trigeminal.com> writes:

    > From: "Simon Josefsson" <jas@extundo.com>
    >
    >> However, by making the change, normalization over time become
    >> instable, and lead to similar consistency issues. If one application
    >> use Unicode 3.2 (or 4.0) and normalize the string, and another
    >> application use 4.1, you also get a different answer.
    >
    > A problem that happens in all standards, like XML, which is why they have as
    > line ast the top of the XML standard that says:
    >
    > "Please refer to the errata for this document, which may include some
    > normative corrections.Please refer to the errata for this document, which
    > may include some normative corrections."
    >
    > With a link to errata.
    >
    > This is how standards work. Given how many errata exist in some standards,
    > it is amazing the standard to which Unicode is held BY THE SAME PEOPLE who
    > appove errata elsewhere that make normative corrections.

    I must have been terribly unclear.

    I'm not saying there isn't a problem that should be fixed.

    I'm saying that maybe there is more than one way to solve the
    identified problem.

    I don't claim that my proposal is better, but I'd like to understand
    why the current proposal is better than any other possible solution.

    I believe the current proposal lead to some problems. Consequently, I
    think it would be worth discussing alternatives before accepting it.

    Regards,
    Simon



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 26 2005 - 16:29:33 CST