Re: Unicode Stability

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Thu Mar 03 2005 - 02:28:58 CST

  • Next message: "Re: Script Continuums (Was: Re: Greek glyphs)"

    At 12:16 AM 3/3/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
    >Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
    > > ... Doug Ewell's definition of stability that "it does not
    > > change in a way that causes existing implementations or data to
    > > break".
    >to which Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> responded:
    > > As stated, that definition is clearly nonsense.
    >Okay, hold on a minute. I'm being quoted out of context. My original
    >statement was:
    >"'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."

    That's a very necessary qualification that Peter left out from Doug's
    definition. My beef was with the abbreviated formulation, that's why
    my comment was prefaced by an 'as stated'.

    Doug's other points are well taken.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 02:29:45 CST