From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 26 2005 - 17:03:48 CST
The problem was that the test implementation matched the intention and was
clear (being an implementation!) but the spec was ambiguous on a particular
Punishing people who looked at the test implementation, and changing the
intention of the UAX, just to satisfy the people who read the spec but not
the code and came to the "wrong conclusion" (50/50 chasnce!) is not a good
plan -- which is why there was a corrigendum.
Coming along now when the corrigendum is being made part of the UAX, and
proposing to back out of the plan already agreed upon seems like n even less
This was extensively debated with people from the W3C and the IETF at the
time of the corrigendum. Probably we should not revisit it again, given the
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead
Globalization Infrastructure, Fonts, and Tools
Microsoft Windows International Division
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Josefsson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <email@example.com>
Cc: "Unicode Mailing List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Paul Hoffman / IMC"
<email@example.com>; "Martin Duerst" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Mark Davis"
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: Open Issue #61: Proposed Update UAX #15 Unicode Normalization
> "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
> > 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,
> > may include some normative corrections."
> > With a link to errata.
> > This is how standards work. Given how many errata exist in some
> > it is amazing the standard to which Unicode is held BY THE SAME PEOPLE
> > 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 26 2005 - 17:05:56 CST