Re: New Corrigendum to The Unicode Standard

From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Aug 21 2007 - 02:31:02 CDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "RE: New Corrigendum to The Unicode Standard"

    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.

    A./
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 21 2007 - 02:34:11 CDT