Re: PRI#86 Update

From: Richard Wordingham (
Date: Wed May 10 2006 - 15:48:40 CDT

  • Next message: Richard Wordingham: "Re: PRI#86 Update"

    Philippe Verdy wrote on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 7:35 PM

    > Conformance to Unicode requirements depends on its version, regarding the
    > corrigenda. Idon't think that an application that breaks in the cases of
    > characters whose equivalence mappings have been corrected is not
    > conforming, regarding the older version of Unicode on which it was based.
    > For this reason, I suggest that "Unicode conforming" should still always
    > include the Unicode number in the conformance labelling, just in case
    > there's a bug corrected later.

    I think we should follow the principle of English law. In English law, the
    meaning of a law passed by Parliament is what Parliament intended it to
    mean, not what the wording actually means. Converting a string to form NFC
    was always intended to yield a string canonically equivalent to the input
    string. The definition of the process was clearly wrong.

    > Regarding the corrigendas published about non-normative properties (such
    > as corrections of the informative representative glyphs), I think that no
    > version switch is necessary (so a font that still uses a glyph looking
    > like the uncorrected representative glyph is still conforming to the same
    > version number, but a font that specifies a later version number should
    > base its glyphs on the corrected represetnative glyph because it has
    > become part of the published standard which integrates now the past
    > corrigendas).

    > That's my opinion...

    Actually a font that produces an incorrect glyph makes the rendering system
    non-compliant, even if it is the glyph shown in the codecharts. Of course,
    that does raise the question of how one knows what character U+0EA3 LAO
    LETTER LO LING is. (Hint: Don't ask in Vientiane!) I suppose the comment
    'Based on TIS 620-2529' is important in this context. There's a better
    solution in Unicode 5.0. On the other hand, digits can generally be
    identified from their properties.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 10 2006 - 15:50:51 CDT