From: Martin v. Löwis (martin@v.loewis.de)
Date: Wed Aug 15 2007 - 12:40:24 CDT
> I think it would be useful to add a more detailed description of the
> derivation; I'll propose that to the editorial committee.
Looking at the proposed text, it is now much more detailed, giving
precise category IDs in table 2. I suggest that this is enhanced by
explaining that the "plus stability extensions" part is formalized
as "plus stability extensions (Other_ID_Start)", and then the
set notation becomes [[:L:][:Nl:][:Other_ID_Start:]] - assuming this
is what is actually meant there.
As for the reviewer question in 5.1.2 ("Should this change be maded to
ID_Start and ID_Continue also?"): This isn't really possible, is it?
a) it would violate identifier stability if the characters were removed
from ID_Start, and
b) ID_Start is a computed property, you cannot edit it directly - only
by changing the underlying subsets. As it is a union, you cannot
really *remove* from ID_Start/ID_Continue, unless you change the
categorization of the character to be removed (e.g. to not be a
letter anymore), or you change the formula by which ID_Start is
computed (e.g. excluding Lo from ID_Start - which is surely
unacceptable).
Regards,
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 15 2007 - 12:42:34 CDT