Re: Character delta between Unicode 4.1 and 5.0

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 - 14:18:08 CST

  • Next message: Chris Jacobs: "Re: Representing Unix filenames in Unicode"

    On 11/30/2005 9:10 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:

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

    As I am the contributing editor for 10646 in charge of code charts, this
    is empty quibbling indeed.
    Andew has it right.

    > 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 draft).

    The FPDAM2(E) is a proposal that was intended as a source for WG2 member
    bodies to make technical comments that would *change* its contents.
    After WG2 has reviewed the ballot comments, any further relevance of an
    FPDAM document is only historical. It has been superseded.

    >>> 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:
    >> <>
    > When I sent the file, the beta directory of Unicode 5.0 was still
    > completely
    > 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.

    Perhaps you have issues with proxy servers and caches.... Ken has been
    posting files to that location for a while. Hit the reload button?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 30 2005 - 14:19:29 CST