From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Aug 21 2007 - 02:31:02 CDT
On 8/18/2007 7:27 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Can we say somewhere that Unicode 5.0 without the corrigendum is no
> more compliant,
Who's the 'we' here?
The Unicode Standard (and website) make very clear that a corrigendum
does not actually modify a version. It also doesn't supercede a version.
What it does, is to allow implementers to claim conformance to a version
with the corrigendum applied.
Unicode 5.0.0 remains an absolutely viable version of the Standard, and
unless implementations explicitly claim conformance to the Corrigendum,
they are expected to conform to Unicode 5.0.0.
Naturally, all affected users hope that those implementations that
support the bidi scripts will get patched to be conformant to "Unicode
5.0.0 with Corrigendum 6."
As you can read on the web, the language in quotes is the official way
to make such a claim, according to the Unicode Consortium.
> and that Unicode 5 with corrigendum 6 should have an easier name? such
> as Unicode 5.0.6?
No, that numbering version is for update versions - and you can find
that information on the website as well.
Before making suggestions like this, it would really be better if you
read the relevant documentation. You are spending a lot of time making
suggestions on the net, and it takes others a lot of time to correct
them for you.
> The line of backward compatibility should be easy to understand from a
> graph, because Unicode 5.0.d0 (the new name for Unicode 5 without the
> corrigendums) is an compatible fork?
> I propose a name for those forks by marking them with “d’ (i.e.
> defective). This way Unicode 5.0 will only refer to subversions
> without the “d”. if all versions before corrigendum 6 are part of the
> fork, then it would be simpler to say that Unicode 5.0 currently
> represents only Unicode 5.0.6.
The choice of the letter 'd' would be highly confusing - it has been
used to mean 'draft' and has been applied in a slightly different
pattern to draft versions of UCD files forever. Using it in this other
way now would be the seed of mass confusion. I can't imagine the Unicode
Consortium would agree to such confusing usage.
> Such compatibility graph should be documented somewhere on the Unicode
> site, with the incompatible branches linked to the list of their
> incompatibilities with the trunk.
The complete set of corrigenda and the list of versions that they can be
applied to, are listed on the Unicode website. If you love graphs. you
can draw your own.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 21 2007 - 02:34:11 CDT