From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 01 2005 - 22:35:52 CST
At 07:44 PM 3/1/2005, UList@dfa-mail.com wrote:
>...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?
Doug Ewell has answered the general aspect of this question, but in the
particular instance it does not apply. The document you cite
> > > This is old but hopefully reliable:
> > >
> > > <
> > > http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr7/tr7-3.1.html#Language%20Tags
> > > >
refers to the language tags as 'proposed' mechanism. You should always rely
on the actual text of the standard, not on preliminary or peripheral material.
By the way, it's not that hard to know whether something substantial has
I had written:
> > Each Unicode Technical Report has a link to it's 'most recent version'
> > in the header. There's never an excuse to not check first what the
> > most up-to-date version of the Standard says, and courtesy to others
> > demands that you do that before trying to engage them in a discussion
> > of a proposal for a particular use of the standard.
I can add:
If you look at the Modifications section in each UAX as well as in the
appropriate appendix in the book, when the book gets updated, you can
quickly get a sense for whether the particular aspect you are interested in
has in fact been updated.
That way, you should not have to re-read every single line everytime the
standard sees a new version. For data files, obviously, you would use a
programmatic diff to review the changes there.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 22:36:38 CST