Re: Unicode Stability (Was: Re: E0000 Language Tags for Some Obscure Languages)

Date: Tue Mar 01 2005 - 22:37:45 CST

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Unicode Stability (Was: Re: E0000 Language Tags for Some Obscure Languages)"

    But when 3.1 came out, I plunked down $2.5 million to start a project that
    depends on E0000 tags. And then just some opinion at Unicode changed about how
    the cups should be arranged on the shelf. And not even an official removal of
    the codepoints to clarify the situation, just "we really don't like them --
    you'll have to guess whether Microsoft ever actually implements them or not".

    But if I suggest any small *addition* to Unicode, I'm told it's this radically
    destabilizing concept that could never happen.

    Just an observation.

    Doug Ewell wrote:
    > Doug <UList at dfa dash mail dot com> wrote:
    > > Sarasvati wants me to not be so sarcastic, so I am going to just ask
    > > simply, is that situation where I have to constantly read up on the
    > > very latest documentation, really in keeping with the idea of Unicode
    > > being inalterable?
    > "Stability" in a standard does not mean that the standard never changes.
    > It means that, as much as possible, it does not change in a way that
    > causes existing implementations or data to break.
    > -Doug Ewell
    > Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 22:23:57 CST