From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 08:56:07 CST
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:22 AM
> To: Unicode Discussion
> Subject: RE: Unicode Stability
> At 06:46 +0200 2005-03-02, Jony Rosenne wrote:
> >>"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
> >meaning of existing data.
> That is true of any disunification.
No, Michael, don't take his bait. The proposals accepted for Hebrew
don't change the meaning of data. The only issue is that the qamats
qatan can't be implemented in existing or new fonts without awkwardness.
But as a font implementer I take it as fundamental that I cannot change
fonts in a way that alters existing documents, precisely so that the
meaning of existing data is not affected.
Jony's claim is simply incorrect: meaning of existing Hebrew data is not
changed by the recently-accepted Hebrew proposals. The only thing that
poses a risk to existing data is having implementers do the wrong thing
when they update their products, but that is always the case.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 08:58:03 CST