From: Jony Rosenne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 01 2005 - 22:46:50 CST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 5:47 AM
> To: Unicode Mailing List
> Cc: UList@dfa-mail.com
> Subject: Re: Unicode Stability (Was: Re: E0000 Language Tags
> for Some Obscure Languages)
> 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.
The recently accepted proposals for Hebrew do just that, they change the
meaning of existing data.
> -Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 22:47:46 CST