From: Andrew C. West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Apr 05 2005 - 07:09:28 CST
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:25:16 +0100, Peter Kirk wrote:
> I note by the way that Ken has agreed that the decision
> was perverse, while noting that it was not the UTC's decision.
I don't think that Ken implied that normalizing U+FACF to U+2284A was perverse.
By their nature compatibility ideographs have to normalize to a unified
ideograph, and all unified ideographs are equal (or so I thought, above the
bleats of "two bytes good four bytes bad"), so it is irrelevant whether it
normalizes to a unified ideograph in the BMP or a unified ideograph in the SIP.
What Ken said was perverse was the fact that North Korea, through WG2, insisted
on lumbering us with yet more unneeded and unwanted compatibility ideographs,
and that WG2 acquiesced to their demand to encode these compatibility ideographs
in the BMP.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 05 2005 - 07:10:59 CST