From: Patrick Andries (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 15:10:02 CDT
Patrick Andries a écrit :
> And I believe this is a very valid reasoning.
> How can one respect the character-glyph model, essential if we don't
> want Unicode to be a glyph repository, and code all the signs of a
> "script" whose characters are not known ? Which also tends to prove
> its very relative usefulness.
Written too fast, Sorry.
> I don't agree with the idea that we should generously code and
> sometimes on purpose err by excess In other words, while we know that
> tomes signs are dubious which should code inexistent or duplicate
> characters just to be done with it.
Should read something like :
I don't agree with the idea that we should generously code and sometimes
on purpose err by excess. In other words, while we know that some signs
are dubious, code them and thus code inexistent or duplicate characters.
Just to be done with it.
> I believe the traditional view should be respected : be prudent, delay
> doubtful cases -- we are not in any hurry in most dubious cases --,
> and code what can be ascertained to be a character.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 20 2005 - 15:11:05 CDT