From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Mar 17 2006 - 10:23:12 CST
From: "Antoine Leca" <Antoine10646@leca-marti.org>
>> Hopefully the standard will be corrected or improved.
> Sometimes else the official Standard stands as it is is (for various
> reason), and developpers have to learn they have to fulfill the official,
> normative, Standard (for conformance), and also to fulfill the existing
> protocols for interoperability (those later are considered /de facto
> standards/, with small "s" here, when they become formalized).
> An example of this are Ethernet frames: the official standard (IEEE 802.3)
> says something which is pretty theorical, and everybody is using another
> format (former DIX "standard" a.k.a. Ethernet II), which is of course
> interoperable. If you design a device only looking after the official
> published standard, it is worth nothing...
Such specification ofoptional features like ligatures, half forms, and subscript dead consonnants could be taken out of the standard, by placing them in a technical note. Although these items are optional, when they are used they MUST follow national standards. The half forms and some ligatures are often seen necessary for readers, and this justifies the addition of sequences with ZWNJ and ZWJ which should be listed somewhere (I think they are much more important than standardizing sequences with variant selectors).
Mandatory things like visual inversions (of vowel signs letters beforethe consonnant cluster, or of a leading dead RA after the consonnant letter) MUST still be specified in TUS.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 17 2006 - 10:29:49 CST