Re: Languages supported by UTF8 and UTF16

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Sun Sep 11 2005 - 02:28:46 CDT

  • Next message: Richard Wordingham: "Tamil Non-Tamil 2-Dot Visarga"

    At 22:12 -0700 2005-09-10, Patrick Andries wrote:

    >>Um, well, the security issues are your bugaboo,
    >>and they are restricted to a narrow range of
    >>activity vis à vis the UCS.
    >Let's not make things too personal.

    I was just saying that security is not the primary raison d'être of the UCS.

    >You know other people are also concerned and
    >disapprove of duplicating similar-looking and
    >similar-behaving (viz. havings same Unicode
    >properties) combining characters (for instance
    >in a script and in the generic combining

    Yes, and your analysis of N'Ko diacritical marks
    was inaccurate. It was based on a faulty analysis
    of N'Ko glyph behaviour and a refusal to accept
    that the set of diacritical marks was a
    self-contained set unrelated in origin, use, or
    form to the generic European diacritics, so that
    a unification was not in order. You took pains to
    try to browbeat the committees into accepting
    your rigid interpretation of what "can be used by
    any script" meant, using that text as a weapon to
    try to make us force an incorrect encoding model
    on N'Ko. You pissed off pretty much the *entire*
    N'Ko community, and then you wonder why they were
    content to let me try to answer you. You
    *offended* them. You've ignored *every* attempt
    to get you to listen to the facts about the
    committees' encoding practice: No text in the
    standard specifies that the generic European
    diacritic dot above MUST be used every time a dot
    combines superficially above. Now the relevant
    committees are engaged in a revision of the text
    which you misinterpreted in order to clarify the
    real criteria used, in order to prevent this kind
    of fiasco happening again. Yet your most recent
    discussion papers again are authoritarian,
    invoking text which you have misinterpreted, and
    even saying that when we try to clarify the
    procedures we are doing it retroactively to prove
    the rightness of our "mistake". The fault was
    *your* misinterpretation; if you will listen, you
    may learn how things really get done. But at some
    point you will have to start listening. And with
    regard to the N'Ko community: you owe them an
    abject apology.

    Please don't skate in here saying "let's not get
    personal" and then try to slip in reference to
    your agenda as though it were innocent.

    Michael Everson *
    PS. N'Ko is under no threat from diacritic 
    spoofing because the only diacritics to be 
    allowed in N'Ko IDN will be script-specific. I've 
    worked hard to get a ban on script-mixing within 
    name elements and it looks as though such a ban 
    will be adopted in ICANN recommendations, with 
    permitted exceptions from time to time (like 
    mixing CHK and Hangul).

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 11 2005 - 02:30:11 CDT