From: Simon Josefsson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jan 26 2005 - 16:27:01 CST
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" <email@example.com> writes:
> From: "Simon Josefsson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> 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
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 26 2005 - 16:29:33 CST