From: Richard Wordingham (richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com)
Date: Wed May 10 2006 - 15:48:40 CDT
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.
Richard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 10 2006 - 15:50:51 CDT