Re: Character delta between Unicode 4.1 and 5.0

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 - 11:10:16 CST

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: Representing Unix filenames in Unicode"

    From: "Andrew West" <>
    > On 30/11/05, Philippe Verdy <> wrote:
    >> This is Amd2 document published by WG2 that I used. If this is wrong or
    >> useless, then the WG2 website is wrong or useless too.
    > It is not the WG2 website that is wrong or useless.
    > N2936 that you used is the document showing the FPDAM2 charts,
    > published eight months ago on 2005-04-01. Since then Amendment 2 has
    > moved on to the FDAM stage, and a number of changes have been made (as
    > outlined by Asmus). A new document, N2991 was issued 2005-09-14 that
    > shows the FDAM2 charts. This document was mentioned several times in
    > recent discussion on this list, and it is right near the top of the
    > list of documents on the WG2 home page
    > <>. Only a complete moron (or
    > Philippe Verdy ... heaven forbid that I should insult the intelligence
    > of the average moron) would use an outdated document when the current
    > one is there for all to see.

    I have the recent update: it is not signed by the WG2, but by Asmus for the
    Unicode TC.

    It remains that the FPDAM2(E) is the latest draft currently published by
    WG2, and it *effectively* states what is supposed to be changed between
    Unicode 4.1 and Unicode 5.0 (similar statement is not in the Asmus revized

    >> When I sent the file, the beta directory of Unicode 5.0 was still
    >> completely
    >> empty (and I verified this fact). Is there something now ?
    > Yes, Ken Whistler invented a time machine, travelled back in time to
    > 2005-10-25 and planted all the documents which are there today:
    > <>
    > As has been said time and time again, please Philippe, if you don't
    > know what you're talking about, just keep your mouth firmly shut.

    And when I sent the email, that folder was *empty* (possibly being updated).
    If it had been there, Michael would of course have not asked his question to
    the list ! And I had verified it before posting.

    I really dislike this aggressive response, asI did not want to be harmful.
    The question was sent publicly, I sued publicly available data, and in fact
    according to the question, I sent the datafile that best matched the
    question (the FPDAM2(E) draft is still the only one that states what changes
    should be applied between U4.1 and U5.0)

    I also have another file that contains the data corresponding to the Asmus
    charts (and I also discussed this privately with Michael Everson regarding
    the differences of synchronization of charts between Asmus's charts and the
    FPDAM2(E) charts).

    So please, don't be agressive: I have not used things that were not
    published for discussions. And still today, the WG2 documents are still
    there and not updated to reflect the recent decisions or revized drafts
    since end of september.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 30 2005 - 11:16:56 CST