Re: Control picture glyphs

From: Dominikus Scherkl (
Date: Tue Sep 04 2007 - 10:00:22 CDT

  • Next message: James Kass: "Re: Control picture glyphs"

    James Kass schrieb:
    > I'd consider "ignorable" to be something which may be ignored
    > rather than something which must be ignored. Also, I'm not trying
    > to force anything on anybody.
    >>From T.U.S. 5.0 p. 545,
    > "Thus, if the variation sequence is not supported, the variation
    > selector should be invisible and ignored."
    OK, this is not a RFC, but _should_ is much stronger than _may_.
    (for RFC's the meaning is specially defined).
    If you should ignore something, you are required to present some
    urgent reason to not do so, if you still claim to be unicode

    I think it would be a good idea to add wording how it was really
    meant in this case, if my interpreataion of should is wrong.

    Dominikus Scherkl

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 04 2007 - 10:02:31 CDT